After a vote to weaken and limit coverage for women, the U.S. House passed landmark health care reform legislation.
OK, so it is bi-partisan by only one vote. Joseph Cao from Louisiana voted Yea.
After a vote to weaken and limit coverage for women, the U.S. House passed landmark health care reform legislation.
OK, so it is bi-partisan by only one vote. Joseph Cao from Louisiana voted Yea.
Comments
Stupak vote from @binker
NC on Stupak amend: No: Butterfield, Kissel, Miller, Price, Watt | Yes: Coble, Etheridge, Foxx, Jones, McHenry, McIntyre, Myrick, Shuler
via http://twitter.com/binker with http://twitter.com/wccubbison confirming
- - - - -
http://twitter.com/Jerimee
Health Care Roll Call Vote in House
Link here.
The party of No was the party of No except for Rep. Cao (R-LA). Rep. Cao is an Asian American who won a majority African American district in the wake of the incumbent William Jefferson scandal.
NC Dems Shuler, McIntyre and Kissell voted no.
i am not thrilled at all...
...by the stupak amendment (and if you want to know what the talking heads will be talking about next, how does this affect his effort to unseat arlen spector?)...bt i have to share my favorite little snippet from last night's debate.
it's george miller commenting on the republican substitute bill, and it's a classic moment:
"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965
Fake...my favorite moment as well
Miller and Rosa DeLauro.
I'm still having a hard time feeling good about the bill. I know Rep. Slaughter said we would fight again, but this happened so fast and we still lost so many votes from people who said abortion funding was their sticking point. Pelosi allowed this vote and didn't allow the vote on single-payer. That's what I'm stuck with. I'm underwhelmed.
Happy if it works, but I even have my doubts about that at this point. I'm sure those feelings will go away, just sorting through them and trying hard not to let this amendment suck all of the joy out of the moment.
***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.
And the battle will still go on, as the focus will shift to..
the Senate. This will be where the red states in the west will have equal footing with every state only having two votes. Now is the time when the more progressive states should re-think their votes on the 'big' agriculture bills, which have been a sure thing in recent years. And the issue of 'corporation control' is the biggest obstacle, with the bribes(lobby money) going into the millions, so the people really need to stay in the game now. This will be the time for leadership and strong will, which are the items missing from the Democratic party up to this point in time. I'm not real optimistic of any worthwhile plan, but we can only hope.
couldn't agree more...
...this is when things really get down to the gettin' down; and even though i took today off, i'll be right back at it tomorrow, and i hope everyone here will be, too.
"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965
based on the vote on the stupak amendment...
...this may have been the best we could get--this time.
of course, if it wasn't already "somewhat common knowledge" that there will be an effort to strip that amendment from the "reconciled" version, it may not have pulled 240 votes.
"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965
Sunday monrning
You walk into church and take a seat. As the organ plays you reflect on you blessings, then you reflect on what you accomplished the past week. I voted against Health Care for millons of Americans. Amen Thanks Larry.
You can't alway get what you want
We still have the Senate vote and then the House/Senate conference for the final bill. As you recall the Dem leadership would not make a commitment to support the Stupak amendment would survive in the final bill, it's congressional sausage making at it's best.
The conservative agenda has placed many, many roadblocks in the path of progressive progress. Their Supreme Court appointments will spend decades trying to push the conservative beliefs over the will of the people.
We know conservatives spent decades on their plan to take over the government. The progressive push back started less that a decade ago. Obama has been in office for less than 12 months, with more on his plate than any incoming president since F. Roosevelt, but with less congressional power.
This realignment of progressive values in government is not a sprint, it's an ultra triathlon. Sometimes in war, you chose to lose a skirmish to win the battle. After the battle is won, you go back and clean up the policies left behind.
The goal is to get the health care bill passed this year. Changes to the bill will be made year after year. But without passage there is no hope.
And, if republicans get control?
"Changes to the bill will be made year after year. But without passage there is no hope."
So, what happens if/when the repugs get in control in the house? Okay to "change" this bill to their liking?
Think about what you are saying.
What have your experiences been?
I have been involved in the legislative and rule making process for decades; local, state, federal and international. I have never seen final passage that I agreed with 100%. Even legislation language I helped draft and pass, ended up unrecognizable in the final language, but we still achieved out objectives.
Yes, the Dems are a bunch of sheep, but they are being taught by Obama, who is making them do the heaving lifting, to become leaders.
Teach someone how to fish............
Do you think there is a chance that Obama might veto any right wing changes to the health bill from a Republican congress in 2011?
Take a deep breath, let the air out slowly, now gear up for the vote in the Senate.
Hopefully that is not condescending
"Take a deep breath, let the air out slowly, now gear up for the vote in the Senate."
In the Senate, the democrats there will have to make some very huge concessions in order to get this bill enacted. One primary concession will be that the bill will have language that will not allow women to have the "choice" option. I, personally, think that is an abomination and know that it will be conceded to get a bill passed for the "gipper" rather than doing the right thing and standing by our principles. What else will our party leaders be willing to do against what we believe in to get this thing enacted?
You and others on this blog can be condescending toward me and what I post here, but it comes from my heart. I do not vary in my opinions for political expediency.
A lesson in poor leadership
I lifted this comment from a post a Open Left
emphasis mine.
It's past time to dump Shuler and McIntyre.
But, it's also past time for Democratic leaders to learn that even when you cave on an issue to for a "big tent" ideal, the DINOs still sell you out anyway.
McIntyre
Regretfully I agree about McIntyre. He has a rather long record of voting against the party on social and some other issues. It would be best to take him out in the primary, but I don't know who would run against him. If we can't find anyone capable of giving him a run for his money the only thing left is to deny him any help in the general. He might win anyway, but hopefully narrowly enough to cure him of sucking eggs. If he lost, we would at least have a better opportunity to run a real Democrat in 2012.
I can forgive Kissell's "no"
He voted against Stupak--if he'd voted for Stupak and against the final bill, like McIntyre and Shuler did, then I'd really be mad. I've kinda adopted Larry as my second congressman since my house is only a mile from the NC-08/NC-12 border.
Call off the dogs!
I have to believe that Kissell, Schuler and McIntyre were given permission to vote against the bill by Speaker Pelosi.
This will make it cheaper for the DCCC to defend their seats and take some steam away from the tea party living dead in their districts.
2010 is going to be a defensive year for Democrats. We'll get lucky because the GOP will stupidly waste a lot of their advantage with infighting, but I sure hope we don't make the same mistake.
Let Larry do what Larry has to do to hold that seat and create a majority so that we can have an awesome speaker like Pelosi.
Not until after the primary
I refer you to a previous comment.
We have 258-177 Democratic majority as of today.
Losing Shuler and McIntyre and a few others is insignificant to maintaining a Democratic Speaker.
Even a Democratic loss of 20 seats is acceptable to me, especially as Blue Dogs don't vote for Pelosi in caucus leadership matters anyway. You can bet that even the likes of Bob Etheridge supported Steny Hoyer over Nancy Pelosi in the leadership race.
Decimate the Blue Dog Caucus.
What are you saying here???
Hopefully I'm misreading your intent here. Are you saying that we should give in to some of the radical right's concerns so as to get "some" of our concerns implemented? What kind of thinking is that? This is not about giving up on what makes us democrats so as to get "some" of the things we believe in enacted.
Do republicans do that? Don't even bother answering that.
what i'm saying here...
...is that if we want to be a "big-tent party", we need to accept that not everyone is going to agree with everyone else in the party, all the time...and that we have to accept that, if we don't want to turn into what the republicans have turned into today.
this is a tough thing to accept sometimes--but we're trying to turn centrist voters in places like ohio, and alabama, and colorado...and north carolina...and we have to appreciate how challenging that can be for a perceived liberal candidate, or for perceived liberal issues.
do we have to accept the concerns of the radical right?
no, we don't--and that's why michelle bachman and steve king and boehner are sitting around today either licking their wounds, hoping the senate will save them, or deluding themselves into believing that victory is just around the corner.
we did not get all we wanted...but we got at least half of what we wanted--and just to put things in perspective, which battle have we ever fought where we got a done deal on the first try?
not the voting rights act, or the clean air act, that's for sure.
medicare never included a drug benefit, and now the new drug benefit has to be fixed (and this bill does close that "donut"), the americans with disabilities act contains that "reasonable effort" loophole, and there are a thousand other similar exemptions that make bills and laws imperfect, but good enough for now...until we can come back and try to do better.
this is why we make all those jokes about making sausage, and this one's gonna be real "sausage-y" by the time it's all done...but let me ask you this:
would we have been better off introducing a single-payer bill up front, accepting no compromises, and watching it crash and burn?
"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965
Fake, you're just wrong here
I appreciate all you do all over the blogosphere for LGBT and other issues, but Shuler and McIntyre have NO history of supporting LGBT issues, and they won't in the future.
As an LGBT North Carolinian, I've long known that Shuler and McIntyre should have been dumped. Now everybody else in the Democratic coalition is figuring it out.
Shuler and McIntyre aren't going to vote to repeal DADT, support ENDA, enact basic financial regulations or anything else I want.
Regarding the trying to make a NY-23 argument here:
It's one thing to decide 1 seat is expendable when you're in a 177-258 minority. It's quite another to recognize that you have to enforce caucus discipline when you have a 258-177 majority.
Further, this isn't just about an analysis of the House, it's about putting the fear of Hera into Senators as they approach the bill. Holy Joe Liebrrridiot from Connecticut needs to have his chairmanship threatened and the submarine base in Groton on the chopping block if his sorry-new-found-deficit concern (wars anyone?) filibusters a health care bill.
kissell...
...is an example of a vote that can be had in a tough state for both those issues, and there are numerous others around the country, house and senate, who also fall into that category: shaheen, from new hampshire, baird, from washington, and tester, from montana, being three examples.
(i would like artur davis to be one of those examples as well, but i'm not confident.)
i'll know more on monday after i get on a conference call, but i get the impression that after the first of the year there really is going to be an effort made to move enda, and as we all know, it's gonna be real tough to whip, so i understand if clyburn is banking a few favors now for later, and allowing "cover" votes is one way to get that done.
to add to the point, check out this list of the dems who voted no...almost all came from districts that voted for mccain.
"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965
Kissell is not yet a member of the Blue Dog Caucus
...and therefore not yet a target I propose.
The Blue Dog Caucus members are here.
The North Carolina Democrats in that group are Rep. Shuler and Rep. McIntyre.
Shuler and McIntyre have been the targets I propose. Even more so since their double votes for the Stupak Amendment and then against the health care bill.
Further (for me), Shuler and McIntyre have no redeeming LGBT votes or cosponsorships.
fair enough...
...which brings us to part two: there need to be alternative candidates in place for this sort of a strategy to work, because we really can't lose 20 seats...or really any seats...in a careless way with a whole lot of difficult votes down the road.
"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965
Logic is right here
Lose these Blue Dogs from the Democratic majority and the Democratic majority is automatically more progressive.
What is hard to understand about that?
Yes, it gives more votes to GOPers and get them closer than they are now, but so what? As long as they are out of reach of a majority it doesn't matter.
I liked it better when the GOPers had "moderates" to deal with in their caucus. Now that they're all gone, the Dems have to deal with reactionaries from red districts masquerading as "Democrats."
Shrink the number of reactionaries no matter their party label.
Here is what is hard to understand about your illogic
http://blog.whorunsgov.com/projects/house-health-care-vote-by-the-numbers/
1. There is no logic to your argument that Republicans are better than Blue Dog Dems and that losing them and putting Republicans in a greater position of power somehow makes the Dems more progressive.
2. 28 voted for and 24 voted against the legislation and we won.
This call to purge the Blue Dogs is the most idiotic and irresponsible position to come from the far left since Nader's insistence that there is no difference between Bush and Gore. Tell me: do you agree with that traitor/spoiler sentiment?
Chris Shays or Mike McIntyre
The far left? That's rich. So is the idea that this health care bill is a "win."
The question isn't a choice between Mike McIntyre or Virginia Foxx.
I'd vote for Chris Shays over Mike McIntyre any day.
Try reading what I actually propose.
Teach a lesson to 20 of the 24 Blue Dogs who voted against the pitiful health care
billslop you call a win.Perhaps you just don't care, but the purging of the GOP, while resulting in temporal GOP minorities in some districts, has successfully moved the country as whole to the right.
MEMO: We aren't even debating single-payer.
And I'm accused of being an apologist for ruthless loyalty?
The goal isn't a 400-35 majority.
At least it's not for me.
The goal is good policy.
You may be right
about the strategies involved, but BlueNC isn't just another tool in the box to help get Democrats elected. We're also, and maybe even more importantly, an issue advocacy outlet. It's not enough to merely place a warm body in the House or Senate. What that warm body does with that seat is how the future of our country is determined.
I can be pragmatic. I can accept the occasional quid-pro-quo behavior if it serves to secure support for some other, dynamic progressive legislation. But you know what? A two-year term means a Representative is constantly fundraising and actively campaigning for a good half of their time in office. Some even more.
I'm not going to hold them to a little tiny, 9-month window of accountability, and give them a pass for all the rest. I can't (and won't) turn it on and off like that. That may be okay for people who are more interested in politics than policy, but I'm not that guy.
Votes matter. It's how we separate rhetoric from reality, the wheat from the chaff. There are already way too many voters out there who have abdicated their responsibility to diligently monitor the behavior of Congress, and the price we've paid for that negligence is a menagerie of puppets controlled from corporate boardrooms.
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and votes like a duck, it's a frakking duck, not a swan.
Can I give an Amen to that !!??
n/t
Yes, you can
But now I have to change the "F" word to the Battlestar Galactica version, so the amen won't seem inappropriate. :)
It doesn't excuse the Stupak vote.
To vote 'yes" on that and then vote "no" on the HCR bill is just evil.
Wrong on Kissell
Kissell did NOT vote for the Stupak amendment.
I know
I was just lifting the quote and should have footnoted that Kissell didn't vote stupid on Stupak. Thanks for noting it.
We cannot sell our soul
When any political party "sells its soul" for political exediency, it has lost.
Foxtrot philosophy :)
The Good Book
which I rarely follow or, heck, even understand, said:
"And what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?"
My cynical answer is: The Whole World
Just ask Goldman Sachs :-)
-b
--
There cannot fail to be more kinds of things, as nature grows further disclosed. - Sir Francis Bacon