Go Nancy, Go!
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091107/..._care_overhaul

Today's the day!

Re: Go Nancy, Go!
 

Call me after the senate is done.

Re: Go Nancy, Go!
 

Jim Newell has some comical coverage of the day in the House here, here, here, and here.

Re: Go Nancy, Go!
 

I turned msnbc on to see Ezra Klein. Cool to see him on tv. Then they cut to Luke Russert. Sheesh.

Re: Go Nancy, Go!
 

For some reason, every time I hear "Luke Russert," I think "Luke Walton," who is actually not a terrible basketball player, even by NBA standards.

I have never seen Luke Russert. How bad is he? Worse than about nine hundred other people on the teevee that I could name?

Re: Go Nancy, Go!
 

Mike Pence is well-known to be a complete idiot:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/ar...ke_pence_2.php

Re: Go Nancy, Go!
 

Painful. He's terrible on tv, like, cable access-level bad, but you just feel sorry for him 'cos his dad died suddenly. :(

Re: Go Nancy, Go!
 

That is a classic post. Yglesias deserves permanent recognition for that one.

Re: Go Nancy, Go!
 

How much longer does he get that pass?

Re: Go Nancy, Go!
 

Good point, but still, this is a huge and well-deserved victory for Obama.

The closeness of the vote vindicates his approach, I believe. Squeezing anything more than a mild version of public option out of the House was just not doable. The President got the most he could get. Kudos to him and Pelosi.

Profile in Courage!
 

Cao is the first and only Vietnamese-American in Congress.

Re: Go Nancy, Go!
 

And he just added another post, to report the vote. Bonus: There is a graphic of (how the wingnuts see) Nancy Pelosi that is to die for.

Re: Go Nancy, Go!
 

Wonderment, Obama is a gutless centrist afraid of rocking the boat. Wait a second, I think I got our parts reversed!

This is definitely cause for celebration. What I don't understand is the 30+ Dems who voted against it. Do they it's going to make them any safer? The wingnuts are still gunning for them. Might as well take credit for doing a good thing if you're going to be attacked for it anyway.

Re: Profile in Courage!
 

The twittering wingnuts are out for blood.

Re: Go Nancy, Go!
 

LOL!

Agreed. I don't understand why they can't grasp this.

(I think big money has a lot to do with it, though, especially on HCR. Some politicians are honest -- they stay bought.)

Re: Go Nancy, Go!
 

Very nice celebratory post from DougJ.

I loved Rufus back in the day.

Re: Go Nancy, Go!
 

Republicans shouting down pro-choice Congresswomen today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMdlcnK_MI4

They're going to pay for this, right? I don't know where these guys are from but I doubt their constituents are proud of that kind of behavior.

Re: Go Nancy, Go!
 

Wow.

Well, the wingnuts love that kind of behavior (cf. Joe "You Lie!!!1!" Wilson and the teabaggers disrupting the town hall meetings). But I do hope enough Republican sympathizers will realize that they're not wingnuts.

Re: Go Nancy, Go!
 

I've never accused him of being gutless. Just accommodating.

When he wins a close one like this, however, he sure looks like the consummate political genius.

So he gets a big high-five from me.

Even though the bill is still a long way from being law, and even though Senators owned by the insurance lobby are still likely to ruin it, today was a very good day for the domestic progressive agenda.

He Had No Choice
 

Cao, like Bobby Jindal, probably supports health care reform. So perhaps he voted his actual conscience, but he is a Representative to a overwhelmingly Democrat district and would have no chance at re-election if he voted against it.

And the Republicans will continue to support him because he's Vietnamese. So he can pretty much vote however he wants to all the time and to hold on to his district he's going to have to vote like a Democrat most of the time.

So like Progressives who love to get on Blue Dog Democrats for not voting progressive enough, I imagine Cao will catch some flack from some incompetents on the Right.

Re: He Had No Choice
 

Yes, that does seem to be the calm, cool, and collected consensus of Greater Wingnuttia. (Fine example here, more from the same guy here, much more here.)

Re: Go Nancy, Go!
 

I was wondering last night whether any of the Dems voted against it because of more principled reasons. Turns out this is true for at least one: Dennis Kucinich.

devils in blue dresses
 

39 "blue dogs" voted NO. Shameful.

What's the point of their existence? I would shed no tears if every "blue dog" democrat lost his seat to a rabid republican in 2010. As long as progressive legislation can be passed without their help, they are merely extraneous.

In fact, I would argue that their presence is a net-negative: it forces conservative "compromises" between "blue dogs" and progressives. Thus, a barebones majority of true progressives is probably a better situation than in this large "big-tent" majority.

Eff the blue dogs...

and good job, Madame Speaker!

EDIT: Just saw bjkeefe's post upthread, so I hereby stipulate:

38 blue dogs voted no and one, um, "red" dog also voted no. Good for him: he at least had the courage of his convictions.

Re: devils in blue dresses
 

Thanks.

Here's another view of the hall of shame, from Scott Lemieux:

About the numbers: Scott's link points you to a list of "64 Democrats on the Wrong Side of Stupak-Pitts," which notes in closing "the list of 26 Democrats who voted 'Aye' on Stupak but 'Nay' on the final bill."

Also, in case I haven't passed this link along already, more on Stupak. (Pun intended.)

Re: devils in blue dresses
 

Marcy Wheeler on Bart Stupak (via):

Re: devils in blue dresses
 

Related: Ann Friedman (via Adam Serwer):

Re: devils in blue dresses
 

One of the advantages of having a large majority is that we don't need every last member to vote for a bill to pass it. I don't know about the particulars of this vote, but it is often the case that the House Leadership will allow members in difficult districts to vote differently from the majority. If these tactics help the Democrats keep those seats in 2010, and the bill passes anyway, it's smart politics. I would not assume that there isn't some strategic reasoning behind some of those 39 votes.

Re: devils in blue dresses
 

That's of course true to some degree, but it is also undoubtedly true that some of these ConservaDems did their level best to water down the bill while it was being crafted, and then ended up voting against it anyway. So, while I am not entirely opposed to the notion of letting some members slide on some issues, because the Republican alternative would be worse, there does get to be a point where DINOs are more counterproductive than they're worth. I'd be willing to have a Republican rather than an Evan Bayh or Max Baucus or Mary Landrieu -- and certainly a Bart Stupak -- because I think it would make many other regions realize that they really do want actual Democrats to represent them.

==========

[Added] Also, what clay said. You get hung as high for a sheep as a goat, as the old saying goes.

I'd be willing to bet some of these House Dems who voted against HCR will nonetheless be attacked next election by their Republican and conservative opponents for being part of what enabled "Obamacare."

Re: devils in blue dresses
 

I think the blue dogs have it all wrong. You think voting for the Iraq war auth helped Max Cleland? The Republicans are gunning for these fuckers no matter how they vote. They might has well do the right thing for a change.

I guess this is what Obama told the House D's on Saturday. I say fuck 'em. Let them lose in 2010.

Re: devils in blue dresses
 

Undoubtedly. I'll note I (a) didn't deny they did, and (b) said that I didn't know anything about the particulars of these 39 votes. I was simply saying that sometimes caucuses protect their members by letting them vote the way their districts or states would want them to, in order to protect their seats. When you have a large majority and don't need every vote in your caucus to pass legislation, there's no reason not to practice smart politics.

Again, take me at my word when I say that I'm not commenting on the 39 votes at issue with this particular vote.



Of course. That's beyond obvious. But it's also not the most relevant consideration; what's more relevant is what voters do, not what their republican challengers do. There may be some voters who will vote for their Congressperson next year because they didn't vote for HCR. Again, this is fact-free speculation as I don't know the particulars of these 39 Representatives, but it's obviously possible, unless you discount entirely the notion that voters respond to the actual votes of their representatives, and not just to what their Republican challengers say about them.

Re: devils in blue dresses
 

Just so you know, I'm not expressing ideological solidarity with the Blue Dogs. I've probably lambasted them more than anyone else around here. Check out the Specter thread for starters, when I complained bitterly that adding a conservative Republican to the Democratic Party wasn't my idea of a victory.

I'm just making the non-controversial and wholly obvious point that sometimes caucuses with large majorities can let the members in more marginal districts vote in ways that are less likely to cost them their seats. Just plain obvious.

Obama is definitely correct that the R's are going to go after them no matter what. I was actually quite pleased to hear Obama say it, because it suggests that he knows it's true of him, too. Until now I had wondered if he realized that they were out for blood and would relent at nothing. His message to the Dem Reps proves he understands this.

Still, what the Republican opponents do is different from what voters do. There may be (speculation alert) some voters in some of those 39 districts who vote for the D over the R because of their vote on HCR.

Re: devils in blue dresses
 

Points taken, and I know you're not forgiving the ConservaDems for their vote on this bill. Just wanted to register a little disagreement for the record.

Re: devils in blue dresses
 

Some data from the NYT (emph. added):

(Whereupon a big ol' table follows.)

It'll be interesting to see how many of these "vulnerables" keep their seats.

Also, the above is actually a sidebar link from this main article. More cool sidebar links there, including some nice rollover maps detailing the roll calls.

Bonus fun fact: one of the Aye votes? Bill Owens (NY-23).

Hat tip to TBogg, who focuses on another aspect.

Re: He Had No Choice
 

I've seen alot of the stupid responses about Cao already. Hopefully, these fools will come to their senses. Much like progressives should when they yell and scream at Blue Dogs.

Both sides have their bigots.

Re: devils in blue dresses
 

Yeah, I'm with you. The blue dogs just drive me crazy though. I don't know how having no allies helps you. Maybe they think the endorsement from the editorial board of the Dickville Daily is worth it.

EK has an informative take on it. More like 13 against than 39 really:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...r_health-.html

Re: devils in blue dresses
 

Thanks for that, clay. The news about the vote tallies breaking the "filibuster" was instructive. Interesting also that three Republicans voted to defeat the stalling maneuver.

Re: Go Nancy, Go!
 

Kucinich makes great points. if this obomination (hehehe couldn't resist) of a bill ends up having individual mandates for private insurance - then this should be a day of mourning for progressives, not celebration.

Re: Go Nancy, Go!
 

I dunno. I haven't looked at the details closely enough to be sure (in large part because I think lots will change once the Senate and House go to conference), but my sense is that this may well be a case where we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I think we would spend the rest of eternity waiting in vain for the sort of health care/health insurance reform you and I would ideally like if we tried to get it all in one fell swoop. There is just too much money opposing any sort of reform, and there are too many people willing to buy into whatever FUD this money pays to broadcast.

Say it with pictures
 

Jake Taplin (via Attaturk):

(Original image link)

Re: Go Nancy, Go!
 

I supported Dennis Kucinich for president until Barack won the nomination. He does make great points, and a lot of us feel that this bill will not come remotely close to providing the kind of healthcare reform we need, and it may even be counterproductive (enabling premiums to continue to soar).

I'm still happy it passed, however, as opposed to being defeated by the Republicans. It's the most that could have been wrung out of this Congress, and we have to hope it's a first step toward significant reform. Also, a loss here for Obama might have been catastrophic for his presidency, leading to a Repub. takeover in 2012 and 2014, which would be very bad outcomes.