Who Are The Dems Against A Public Option In The House?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:16:40 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

As longs as the Progressive Block holds, no health care reform bill without a public option will pass the House. But with Mike Ross' "shocking" opposition to the public option, the question came to me - what Democrats are against the public option in the House (of course all Republicans will oppose any health care reform bill). The Hill provides this handy dandy list of the 23 who have announced their opposition:

John Adler (N.J.), Jason Altmire (Pa.), John Barrow (Ga.), Dan Boren (Okla.) Rick Boucher (Va.), Allen Boyd (Fla.), Bobby Bright (Ala.), Travis Childers (Miss.), Jim Costa (Calif.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Parker Griffith (Ala.), Frank Kratovil (Md.), Betsy Markey (Colo.) Eric Massa (N.Y.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Charlie Melancon (La.), Walt Minnick (Idaho), Tom Perriello (Va.), Earl Pomeroy (N.D.), Heath Shuler (N.C.), Bart Stupak (Mich.), John Tanner (Tenn.), Gene Taylor (Miss.)

As you can see, of the 23, 16 are from the South or other Deep Red states. They were always nos, and nos to any health care reform. Who are the other 7? Let's discuss them on the flip.

Eric Massa is opposing because he is for single payer. Somehow I think his No will become a Yes. Adler is in New Jersey, Costa is in California, Markey is in Colorado, Kratovil is in Maryland, Stupak is in Michigan, and Altmire is in Pennsylvania. My own view is that these representatives are almost certainly toast for 2010 whether they vote for a public option or not. Indeed, they are probably more likely to lose by voting against a public option.

My point is Pelosi can't worry about these reps. And they can't block a public option. At least, that is how I read it.

Speaking for me only

< Blue Dog Mike Ross Opposes Medicare | Against Incrementalism When It Comes To The Public Option >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Who Are The Dems Against A Public Option In The House? | 87 comments (87 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Altmire will probably be re-elected because (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by kempis on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:34:04 AM EST

he has close ties with the area's major employer--University of Pittsburgh Medical Centers--and he represents a conservative, wealthy district that is home to lots of health industry execs in the region. It's a district that elected Santorum's friend Melissa Hart three times. Thanks to his corporate donors, he'll have the money to stay in office.

What's pitiful is that before Altmire went into business for the hospital conglomerate, he was a staffer in DC who worked on health care reform in the early 90s. He knows exactly what he's doing: selling out. Apparently it's the rage among the "creative class" Dems.

info on Altmire's district

: Altmire's bio (none / 0) (#9)
by kempis on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:36:04 AM EST

Markey doesn't oppose a public option (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by MikeDitto on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:10:04 PM EST

She opposes a public option that would add to the deficit. It's a pretty standard Democratic line and in fact has been Obama's stated position all along.

"If it doesn't cost us a penny. If it's operated like a nonprofit. If it's not getting subsidies from the government. If it's on a level playing field with insurance companies. If people are not forced (into it) by their employer. If they don't want to go to the public option, and they can still choose a private plan. ... If those requirements are met, yes, I support a public option because it does bring some competition into the system."

She's describing the public option in HR3200.

Er, what's the point of (5.00 / 1) (#78)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:46:57 PM EST

a PO that's "on a level playing field with the insurance companies"?


: She has wiggle room (none / 0) (#79)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:55:04 PM EST

to define that later.

Good to know (none / 0) (#70)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:11:33 PM EST

Hope it is true.


Altmire is a former health insurance lobbyist (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:26:32 AM EST

but personally I don't think he's in any real electoral danger: he's a conservative Democrat in a Beaver/Lawrence County district (conservative Democratic territory like West Virginia that Michael Dukakis won).

Costa should flip, and in fact a primary challenge seems in order for him.

Adler is in a South Jersey district that went for Gore, Bush, and Obama. Ocean county has turned very red in the last ten years, but the rest of the district has turned blue. He is probably reacting to the local political climate (read, Corzine) and might even have some ugly private polls.

Bet you 10 right now (none / 0) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:32:11 AM EST

Altmire loses.


I'll take that (none / 0) (#7)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:34:07 AM EST

Ron Klink held it for years without any trouble (until he lost to Rick Santorum in 2000).

If he loses, Dems will probably lose the House.


If that were so (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:37:27 AM EST

Then he is precisely the type of rep who should be primaried.

I think the district is not very Dem and Altmire is a goner.

I disagree with you on how waves work.


: Well, I would not count on holding it (none / 0) (#12)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:40:05 AM EST

in an open seat situation no matter the political climate.
Personally I would advise Altmire to support the public option so he gets all of the union support he'll need. (The rest of the district is wealthy Republican P'burgh suburbs).

If Boucher is going (none / 0) (#2)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:30:07 AM EST

to go against public opinion and vote the GOP viewpoint I might as well vote Terry Kilgore if he runs. At least then I won't be stuck with an entrenched incumbant that difficult to remove.

That's kinda stupid (none / 0) (#4)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:32:16 AM EST

You're never going to improve on Boucher in that district.


Stupid to give a frack (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:33:26 AM EST

about Boucher though if you are a progressive.

I'm not rooting against him but I am certainly not going to work for him.


I care just a little bit (none / 0) (#8)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:35:59 AM EST

because the alternative is much worse.

Obviously, he isn't getting any time or money from me. The blue dogs can use their own cash.


No it isn't (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:38:12 AM EST

Having Bouvcher or not having him ONLY matters at 218.

We are nowhere near that number.


If we drop to 230, losing only (none / 0) (#14)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:41:22 AM EST

people like him, I won't lose any sleep. But if I'm living in this district, and there's the chance of a wave, I'm sure not going to vote for his Republican opponent.


Well (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:44:25 AM EST

You choose from the coices you have.
I was thinking in terms of what progressives should think.

I do not care if Boucher wins. Like I did not care that Travis Childers won.


: Travis Childers (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by lilburro on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:05:58 PM EST

is one of those people I did not want elected period. I know this argument has been had before (on its very own thread even!). I guess his sole value is as a placeholder for a future primary.
However, if Childers is against the public option, what is his value? As Steve M said in the Childers wins thread, Southern Democrats partnered with LBJ to pass Great Society programs. Well...now would be the time to do just that, Childers. If he can't then I think it would make more sense to have a Republican there. All he is doing now is hurting the Dem brand such as it is.

I have no interest in a Democratic majority (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:56:39 AM EST

that does nothing. If they can't pass policy that helps Americans then I see no reason to keep them.

BTD is always quick to point out that pols are pols and they and their actions are dictated by self interest.

Well, my position is that voters should be doing the same. I'm all for ditching party loyalty and acting in your own interest.


If you think your best political interest (none / 0) (#25)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:58:37 AM EST

lies in having a Republican Congressman and President, be my guest and vote that way. But don't pretend we have any substantive interests in common.


To be clear (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:09:08 PM EST

I do not agree with cawaltz' argument in toto, but I DO believe there some need for a Madman Political Bargaining component for progressives.

My case in point is Travis Childers. I had no preference for Travis Childers over his opponent.

If I lived in his district, I would be looking for a primary opponent to support, and if he won, would sit on my hands in the GE.

If he does not get us 218, he is useless. Counterproductive even as we have to worry about him in theory.


: IF he doesn't get us to 218 and (5.00 / 2) (#44)
by MO Blue on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:26:05 PM EST

also counterproductive, him losing the race would his give Democratic constituents the opportunity to vote for a Dem who might be less counterproductive in 2 years. I would like seeing being "counterproductive" as harmful to a Democrats political health.
Holding on to the majority is one thing. Supporting people who do harm to critical issues is another IMO.

: That special election was really of no (none / 0) (#36)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:12:11 PM EST

consequence, so I don't disagree. Certainly I wouldn't give Childers any money.
But as I'm sure you've said before, November is not the time for intraparty disputes.

: The irony for me (none / 0) (#40)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:17:47 PM EST

in 2006 the GOP didn't even bother to run anyone against Boucher. Why? They also assume he's the best THEY'RE gonna get. Usually if they do run someone against him, it's someone like the local dogcatcher(yes they actually ran a dog cather against him).

My interest (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:11:26 PM EST

is best served by having a politician that listens to me. I don't really care whether they have a D or R after their name. Party affiliation is inconsequential if you aren't actually demonstrating the values you espouse on paper.


Trouble is (5.00 / 2) (#50)
by cal1942 on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:35:46 PM EST

no R is going to listen to you.


: Then in 2 years (5.00 / 2) (#55)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:42:35 PM EST

he or she will be gone too. I know my district, I actually live here. People here are aching for someone who actually ACTS in their interest.

I'll take my chances (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:49:25 AM EST

If Boucher feels the russian roulette system we have is adequate, I'm willing to do the same with who represents me. It really is that simple for me. I'm not issuing "passes" on issues that affect millions anymore. You either represent the people in your district or you get fired. I'll keep voting them out.

Anecdotally that neighbor I spoke about in an earlier post on disability called Boucher's office looking for a solution for the fact that she couldn't afford an MRI. He is well aware that the system we have is inadequate.


I disagree (none / 0) (#15)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:41:58 AM EST

and I actually live in his district. Do you?


No, but I can read election results (none / 0) (#16)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:43:04 AM EST

It's shrinking and has been trending R for 10-15 years. John McCain's best district in the state IIRC.


Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:51:23 AM EST

By the way, I voted for John McCain as did my spouse. Both of us voted for Kerry in 2004. Does your mapping show stuff like that because the rank of Indies are growing pretty exponentially.(Hooray!)


I think your vote for McCain (5.00 / 5) (#22)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:53:02 AM EST

reveals your lack of political sense.


The best (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:01:33 PM EST

thing for LONG TERM Democratic causes is to let Democrats lose when they suck. It hurts short-term, but at least Democrats may start listening to their constituencies.

Thus, I think your position of "A Democrat is always, always, always better" is pretty narrow-minded, and since you used the word, I'll say stupid. Those, like you, who have nowhere else to go are powerless.


The "short term hurt" (5.00 / 4) (#28)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:04:09 PM EST

is highly consequential. There is nothing innocuous about letting Republicans win.

The power is in the primary process. If not for the House then for other offices.


Yeah because if a Republican (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:20:48 PM EST

won in this district he might vote against comprehensive health care for everyone.....oh wait.....ooopsie.


Short term memory (5.00 / 5) (#45)
by mmc9431 on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:27:28 PM EST

Just look at the total distruction GWB managed in his 8 years. There isn't a department or agency in the gov that hasn't been trashed.

I can accept sitting out an election in some instances, but to actively help the Republican's is a totally different story. (That is unless you agree with their platform).


Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#58)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:48:13 PM EST

and GWB did it all by himself. He didn't have the help of anyone else on FISA or the war or anything at all. I love how powerless the Dems always are. It's a wonderful selling point when speaking with a constituency determined to act in their own best interest.


: There's enough to go around (5.00 / 2) (#73)
by mmc9431 on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:18:25 PM EST

No he didn't do it alone. But a lot of the damages done throughout the agencies came through appointments.
A lot of the other damage was also managed by fear. American's were afraid and he played it like a drum.
What he couldn't accomplish through legislation he did through executive order or else he just ignored the law and bypassed everyone.
I don't discount the enabling Dem's that cowered in the corners, but a president can (if he chooses) weld a lot of power in determining the agenda.

Yeah (none / 0) (#38)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:13:22 PM EST

how IS that primary thing going out here? Who was it that the Dems were offering as an alternative to Boucher? Oh that's right, no one because the party infrastructure already has the seat, for all intents and purposes sewn up.


It's nice to know someone gets it (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:05:46 PM EST

If your default vote is for them, they have no reason to listen to you. You're already a sure thing.


there is more to politics (none / 0) (#49)
by CST on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:35:25 PM EST

than pulling the lever in Nov. Such as: money, time, organizing power, and loud voices.

One vote is one vote. A loud voice can change 1000 votes.


: Oh I'm a pretty loud voice (none / 0) (#52)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:38:54 PM EST

I will advocate for Rep. Boucher to change his mind all the way up until Nov. After that, all bets are off. I'm not going to sit by and allow the person representing us to sit on his hands regarding health care.

that worked really well (5.00 / 3) (#43)
by CST on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:24:31 PM EST

in 2000. There is such a thing as short-term hurt being catastrophic and turning into long-term hurt.

As my father would say "the only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican". There are always things to do and places to go besides the right-wing party of crazy. Such as primaries.


Again (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:36:43 PM EST

How is that going? Who was it again that progressives are giving me as an alternative to Boucher? Oh that's right, NO ONE.. They're content with a placeholder because some map in some stupid guys office says it would be a waste of money to primary him, he's the best we're gonna get.

Meanwhile folks like my neighbors are stuck with crappy insurance that runs them $600 a month on a fixed income because they aren't old enough for Medicare(I gues they're SUPPOSED TO get that Walmart greeter job for the bang up insurance like Evelyn, who has a back problem and continues to work to keep the insurance). Meanwhile folks like my neighbor go for years without testing that could potentially help her with treatment.

Tell me again how life will be so much worse for them if the Democrats don't win. It's already bad so paint me the scenario if we elect a Republican to replace him. Who knows if its good enough maybe you'll convince me not to drag all the people above along with my husband to the polls to vote against him.


Uh, why don't you run? Or recruit someone else? (5.00 / 3) (#53)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:39:25 PM EST

You can start by prominently displaying your John McCain bumper sticker.


: No thanks (none / 0) (#60)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:49:36 PM EST

if I were to run it would be as an Independant and I have 4 children who I'd rather not have drug through the mud.

: If you don't think (none / 0) (#64)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:59:00 PM EST

I got him votes, you're mistaken.
I'll exit the thread now. Good luck with your "I'm going to put all my eggs in the broken basket" strategy. It's coming along swimmingly. The Democrats really seem to be taking what you all are saying to heart(rolling eyes).

Life so much worse (5.00 / 3) (#57)
by CST on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:46:58 PM EST

Unemployment at 20%. A true "great depression" due to absolutely no stimulus other than tax cuts. Ford bankrupt along with GM and Chrystler.
Increasing troops in Iraq. Another right-wing nutjob on the court. A new useless war against some other foreign country that happens to look at us funny. A lily ledbetter veto. The continued destruction of civil rights protections by the DOJ. The global gag rule. And that's mostly just things from the first 6 months (I might have speculated a bit on the new war, but within 4 years).

There is nothing that says you have to let some people in a room decide your candidates. There is such a thing as a grassroots campaign. The thing is, it needs people to actually work for it.


You haven't convinced me (none / 0) (#61)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:53:58 PM EST

I'm not buying that we would be any worse off.

Sorry.

When I meant provide me a compelling argument I meant not just provide me with far out hypotheticals.


What else is there (5.00 / 2) (#65)
by CST on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:59:23 PM EST

but hypotheticals? The republicans lost.

Far out??? So you think we would have done better with no stimulus? You know what he wanted, he said it publicly. You think he would've signed the ledbetter act? He said he wouldn't. You think he would've over-turned the global gag rule? Reduced troops in Iraq? That's not what he said. Maybe you didn't believe Ford when they said they would go under without help for GM. I did.

These are pretty reasonable hypotheticals, IMO, because the vast majority of them come from specific statements/policies. But yes, they are just hypotheticals, because I can't re-run the last 6 months with McCain as pres. Thank goodness for that.


We were going (none / 0) (#71)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:11:34 PM EST

to have stimulus no matter what. It's absurd to pretend that McCain would have ignored the economy in it's entirety.

Furthermore the Democrats would still control Congress and the purse strings. Heck, we probably had MORE trying to bring the GOP on board during the stimulus bill as a result of Obama's "bipartisan" strategy than would have occured had Pelosi and Reid decided to play political hardball for drama.

Ford wasn't in danger of bankruptcy(anymoreso than Toyota)and didn't take adime of bailout money. GM and Chrysler are still draining the taxpayers and it is uncertain if they will ever be able to provide a return (and the retirees still got the shaft in the deal).

Meh. Just because we are talking hypotheticals doesn't mean you can't find supporting information to support your position.

For example when I was deciding on support I used hypotheticals to determine which candidate I'd vote for. I used the fact that Obama did not support a universal plan in the primary and spoke about making poor people choose between rent and health care to decide that he wasn't fully committed to a system that would provide health care for everyone. While I would have liked my hypothetical not to bear out, it looks like I was fairly accurate. Why? I used factual information to form my opinion.


: It's obsurd? (5.00 / 2) (#75)
by CST on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:27:03 PM EST

I am taking McCain and Ford at their words. Ford said - if you do not bail out GM we will go under. The auto industry is all one big happy family. They would not have been able to float otherwise. That's what they said.
McCain has consistently been an extreme fiscal conservative. There is no reason to think he would've supported a Stimulus, especially considering how hard he pushed back against the one we have.
The DOJ has been making serious strides to turn back the damage done by the Bush white house on civil rights law. Lily Ledbetter was signed not vetoed. The global gag rule was lifted. You really think McCain would've done any of those things? Not to mention he would've supported another Alito or Roberts for the court. While it is unlikely Souter would've stepped down, there is no guarantee the others would've made it through a McCain pres.
There are supporting positions to every hypothetical I stated (with the exception of the new war which is just a hunch).

I assume you voted for Al Gore, right? (none / 0) (#63)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:57:32 PM EST

If you did, there's an inconsistency in your argument. If you didn't, then there really isn't anything to discuss: you are objectively a Republican.


Yeah I did (none / 0) (#66)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:00:42 PM EST

I'm a liberal. Emphasis on the proud and unashamed part. I believed in a lockbox(and by the way my conservative neighbors now shake their head over the fact that they didn't listen. He WAS right.)


: This response really speaks for itself (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:04:37 PM EST

Just for (none / 0) (#68)
by cal1942 on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:07:31 PM EST

starters it should be noted that Bush & Co wanted to privatize Social Security. Wanted to privatize Medicare (and actually succeeded to a point, etc.

I could go on, but generally Republicans will never give up their assault on the safety net, will never give up cutting taxes on the very wealthy, will never give up their assault on the middle class and would stay on that course until they've pretty much destroyed the nation.

What has to be done is to get the Democratic Pary back on track.

Now letting them lose to get the message across may seem like good, tough effective medicine, but, with the alternative a batsh!t crazy Republican Party we're kind of stuck with using the Primary process to clean house.

Certainly the Democrats needed a strong President and Obama was the last candidate the party needed. A strong President, committed to actual reform on many fronts could have turned around (by force if needed)this batch of Blue Dogs in both Houses.

I just don't know what to do about that now except perhaps establishing a movement for each issue. Policy not party. Certainly the Democratic Party's primary process has to be reformed. A badly flawed system was at least in part responsible for sticking us with the weakest and most conservative of the available candidates.


: Oh the irony (3.50 / 2) (#72)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:13:15 PM EST

you do realize that Obama's next reform effort is Social Security. And judging by the reform efforts thus far I can't wait to see how a "progressive" agenda is going to shape those reforms. Oh joy!

Heh (2.00 / 2) (#27)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:03:59 PM EST

and how exactly is Obama working out for you?

Let's recap he filed a brief for DOMA, he hasn't rescinded the conscience clause and took birth control out of the stimulus bill to placate a GOP that still didn't vote for it. The guy who headed the DoD under Bush still runs the DoD. Oh and he still isn't anxious to let who we tortured see the light of day or punish anyone who actually created the policy just the people who were stupid enough to believe that the orders were lawful. He's floated proposals to employer health care plans JUST LIKE MCCAIN and is proposin g subsidies(which we all know is MILES apart from the tax credit that McCain was proposing right?)

Have you at least gotten the pony?

I bow to your superior strategery./snark


And McCain (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by cal1942 on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:40:24 PM EST

would have been better how?


He wouldn't (none / 0) (#56)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:46:23 PM EST

have destroyed the liberal brand in 2-4 years. If I was going to vote for someone espousing playing nice with conservatives and who thought Reagan was the cat's meow, I figured I'd vote for the one who actually was the conservative. If he continued along the path then in 2 years time we would be able to actually get someone in their with the courage to address stuff like health care from a liberal viewpoint.


Well (5.00 / 1) (#74)
by cal1942 on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:22:29 PM EST

I do agree with your point about the damage to the liberal brand. That was my fear at midnight during the primaries and when Obama was nominated. Since the inauguration those fears are no longer limited to the quiet hours.

I think one likely outcome of all of this is that the percentage of eligible voters showing up for elections will drop, significantly, over time. Deep cynycism will emerge. A smaller and smaller electorate will choose elected officials.

Our general decline as a nation will accelerate.


The number of indies (none / 0) (#80)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 02:25:59 PM EST

are growing as the electorate starts to realize that they are being played and utilized as political pawns by one party or another.

The Democrats continue to do nothing at their own peril. They were given a mandate in 2008. If they choose to exercise cowardice and do nothing but wring their hands they will end up paying politically.

For the record, it gives me no joy in being right. I'd rather have been wrong. I'd rather he'd pass health care reform and a whole host of policies that progressives could be proud to call their own and someone else could say "we told you so"


: Yup (none / 0) (#87)
by cal1942 on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 08:52:48 AM EST

And the indies also will have nowhere to go and will be the first big crop of noshows.
As a nation we're in a real bad place here. "Leadership" is loathe to bite the bullet and make necessary reforms and healthcare is only one of several areas in desperate need of reform. A prescription for our demise, a pathway to second or third world impotence.

I'll bet you would have just loved (4.75 / 4) (#29)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:05:06 PM EST

President McCain's replacement for David Souter, too.


Let me know (none / 0) (#32)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:08:24 PM EST

when Sotomayer makes her first decision if it matters. I can't wait to see if she makes a difference in the campaign finance thing. Isn't it just swell that the scope has been expanded even with a Democrat sitting in the WH?


Pfft (4.00 / 3) (#34)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:10:14 PM EST

Yeah (none / 0) (#39)
by cawaltz on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:14:21 PM EST

that's what I figured you'd have as your argument.


: i think... (5.00 / 2) (#47)
by Dadler on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:30:23 PM EST

...actually, that it's more likely souter would've hung around if mccain were elected, so that specific point is SORT of moot. but it's really hard to deny that, almost assuredly, mccain would've nominated people more in line with the current nutcase majority on the SCOTUS.

Hmm (none / 0) (#13)
by Steve M on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:40:47 AM EST

Bart Stupak survived the 1994 election as a freshman. I suspect he will be okay. As for his constituents, on the other hand...

Question (none / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:43:13 AM EST

If we need Stupak's vote, and I doubt we do, can he be pressured?


Yes IMO (none / 0) (#59)
by Steve M on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:49:22 PM EST

far as I can tell, his hangup is mostly over abortion...


Really? (none / 0) (#62)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:54:54 PM EST

I thought that was out already.


: Sure it is (none / 0) (#76)
by Steve M on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:36:17 PM EST

but the concern is still that a public option today could lead to taxpayer-funded abortion down the road. Doesn't matter, it's not like I'm going to defend the merits of his argument, I'm just saying that he's not really one of the "oh noes! socialism!" types.
The good people of the Upper Peninsula may have no money and no jobs but at least someone is staunchly defending the rights of the unborn on their behalf, which sure is peachy.

: Subsidies (none / 0) (#77)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:45:37 PM EST

As I understand the pro-life argument on this, if the government gives subsidies or tax credits to people to buy private insurance and that private insurance covers abortion, then taxpayer money will be going in part to pay for abortion. That fact would seem to be not only a problem for the pro-life bunch, but might be legally against the Hyde Amendment.
Not sure how we get past the Hyde Amendment thing, if they're right that it would apply.

Stupak is safe (none / 0) (#84)
by noonan on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 04:08:57 PM EST

SteveM's last comment pretty well describes the situation here. I live just across the border in WI. Not sure why BTD is saying he's toast.

Not on the list, but more at risk is my guy: Kagen. He's for the public option, but won't "take the Pledge" - I asked him myself. What's the feeling about WI-08 if Stupak is considered gone?


There's only 1 issue in Stupak's district. (none / 0) (#85)
by Ben Masel on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 04:13:29 PM EST

Guns.


What is Eric Massa doing on that list? (none / 0) (#21)
by inclusiveheart on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:52:56 AM EST

Sigh.

Single Payer (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:53:35 AM EST

He is a Yes really.


: Well as a strong single payer advocate (5.00 / 2) (#48)
by MO Blue on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:31:06 PM EST

Massa should be a definite NO to anything less than a public option.
At this point, I'm very interested in who we can count on to deep six bad legislation.

: Okay because I thought that (none / 0) (#37)
by inclusiveheart on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:12:48 PM EST

was really out of line with everything that I ever read that he wrote.

Frank Kratovil (none / 0) (#41)
by DBaker on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:20:46 PM EST

Really counts as a moderate Republican really, just like the actual Republican that was in there for 16 (?) years before him, Wayne Gilchrest.

He won in a R +10 District by about 500 votes because Andy Harris ran to the right of Gilchrest in a 3-way GOP primary and won. Harris who believes that Griswold was wrongly decided, for example.

Gilchrest endorsed Kratovil in 2008 which probably made the difference. I think that in a non-Presidential year he is indeed toast as the crazies will come out to vote and sensible people will stay home.

The Dems will likely give him a district (none / 0) (#46)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:29:11 PM EST

he can win in 2012. In fact, if I were him and convinced that I might lose next year, I'd start worrying about the 2012 Democratic primary. (He can pretty easily be given a district that Obama won by 10 points).


: Do you mean with Redistricting? (none / 0) (#83)
by DBaker on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 03:50:39 PM EST

MD-01 was already gerrymandered to death when Glendening did it the last time around. Maryland already is districted in such a way that it favors Democrats over the GOP.
I don't see how the districting could be done in any manner that wouldn't rob the proverbial Peter to pay Paul in 2012 - Donna Edwards is the only Dem that is relatively independent and her district doesn't touch MD-01, only Steny's, Sarbanes', Dutchs' and Cummings' do and I don't see MOM endangering any of them.
That said, Harris is so incredibly nutty that redistricting would be unnecessary in the first place and he would win regardless.

Massa is an exception (none / 0) (#81)
by goldberry on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 02:35:23 PM EST

He is a single payer advocate. He's voting on principle.

These Red States (none / 0) (#82)
by bob h on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 02:56:30 PM EST

As you can see, of the 23, 16 are from the South or other Deep Red states.

lead the nation in hypertension, diabetes, etc. Texas and La lead in petroleum-related cancers. Combine that with low rates of insurance due to poverty and neglect, and you have a real disaster.
How can these Representatives turn a blind eye to this?

: And the fact that they're taking more (none / 0) (#86)
by sallywally on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 06:09:08 PM EST

Federal help than the blue states compared to how much they put in in taxes....
Maybe the pols see themselves as "better" than their constituents, who are not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps....