Health Care Reform Passes The House

by: Chris Bowers

Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 19:09

Final Update: Health care reform passes the House 220-215. One Republican votes in favor (Joseph Cao, LA-02), 39 Democrats vote against. List available shortly.

Earlier, every Democrat, and one Republican, voted against the Republican substitute version of the bill.

Before that, 64 Democrats, and all but one Republican, voted in favor of the Stupak amendment. That amendment bars any health insurance plan that covers abortion procedures from entering the new health insurance exchanges established by this bill.

Stupak said earlier today that this bill had enough votes for passage even without his amendment. Further, President Obama has supposedly promised that he will personally work to remove that amendment from conference committee. We shall see.

The list of Democrats who voted in favor of the Stupak amendment, but against the overall bill, should be available soon. Just as important as primary challenges, we need to create an alternate DCCC, so that progressives don't see their money spent on anti-choice, anti-health care Democrats. A Stupak amendment of our own, if you will, to make sure that our money doesn't end up funding shitty Democrats.

Previous updates have been moved to the extended entry.

Chris Bowers :: Health Care Reform Passes The House

The order of voting tonight will be:

Stupak amendment (action alerts can be found here
Republican health care bill
Democratic health care bill. A list of likely "no" votes among Democrats can be found here.

Natasha and I need to step away for a while now that the debate in coming to and end.

Final roll call votes will appear here. Open Left will provide some live updates on our Twitter feed.

Update: Stupak amendment FAILS on voice vote. Roll call vote coming.

QUICK MATH: Stupak had 43 Dems in July. If 5 GOPers vote present, 216 and needed to pass. 177 GOPers in House. 177 minus 5 plus 43 Dems equals 215. So, if 5 GOPers vote "present," then Stupak loses, unless he has gained votes since July or if there is a vacancy right now.

Stupak amendment passes easily: Well over 60 Democrats supporting the Stupak amendment. Once it got over 45, it became a "freebie" and lots of people piled on. Anyone who votes against the overall bill, but voted in favor of this amendment, should be primaried. And defeating them with a pro-choice, pro-health care candidate should be doable, in any district in the country.

The amendment can still be stripped in conference committee. Supposedly, President Obama promised Henry Waxman that he would personally work to do just that. We'll see...

Tags: open threads, health care, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Health Care Reform Passes The House | 74 comments

Thanks to both of you! (4.00 / 9)

John McCain won't insure children

by: magster @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 18:32:58 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

5-6 Goopers to vote present on Stupak amendment (4.00 / 4)

http://mobile.politico.com/blo...

That's good for us, right?

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

by: lord_mike @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 18:37:04 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

should be (4.00 / 1)

Assuming that Pelosi does have 218 for the unamended bill, which seems likely. But Shadegg probably doubts she does, and would rather see the whole bill go down, than see it pass with the Stupak amendment. Interesting calculation.

by: Daniel De Groot @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 18:39:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Shadegg (R) to vote Present on Stupak (4.00 / 7)

and expects 4 or 5 other R's to do so too

If true, that should bury this thing. His reasoning doesn't make much sense, unless he thinks the whole bill is more likely to be defeated without Stupak's amendment.

by: Daniel De Groot @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 18:38:06 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

If Del. Norton (D-DC) Was Allowed to Vote (4.00 / 3)

...it would be one more vote for Choice, one more vote for reform in 2009 and one more vote for better reform in 2010 and beyond.

By the way, just because it has been since 1994 since there was a major health care reform vote doesn't necessarily mean it will be another 15 years.

by: howardpark @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 18:41:32 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

It will be more like 40.... (0.00 / 0)

No politician will touch this with a 10 foot pole... The dems were flying high in approval before this thing started... Every time someone tries to fix the system, approvals plummet...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

by: lord_mike @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 19:14:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Because the assholes on TV .... (4.00 / 1)

are against it .. that's why ... they take away the wrong lesson .. just like they are with Deeds loss ... these dumbasses will never learn

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 19:35:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

This is some bullshit! (4.00 / 10)

I usually want to be as constructive as possible in comments, but GODDAMN IT!!

How the fuck can you allow a Republican anti-choice amendment that will kill the whole fucking thing and NOT allow a single-payer and a robust public option amendment! That's just terrible fucking logic on House leadership's part. Don't they see what they're doing!!!

Okay, enough. Thanks for letting me vent!

Now, how's about we start an Open Left project to draft primary challengers for EVERY Democrat who supports the Stupak amendment (regardless of its passage) and maybe even a primary challenger for every Democrat who votes against the final bill? Anyone else feel me here?

by: jlars @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 18:41:48 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I'm there. (4.00 / 3)

Montani semper liberi

by: Sadie Baker @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 18:50:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

count me in (4.00 / 3)

by: The Big Hurt @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 19:06:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Hell Yes! (4.00 / 5)

I'm down for that. I'll work for any challengers in nearby districts.

by: themann1086 @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 19:34:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

For Stupak -No. Against the bill YES. (4.00 / 2)

Abortion is such a personal thing, I can't condemn anyone in my own party who politely differs with me on true moral grounds.
However if I detect someone is using it as a political tool, as I believe major dickhead/liar/Republican John Shadegg of Arizona is, regardless of party, than yes -they deserve their asses kicked out the door.

Health care, on the other hand is a no-brainer. There too though, the opposite should occur. If we have a good solid Dem whom we'll lose because his/her constituents just won't accept his YES vote -we should defend him, not dump on him.

Other than that I've already vowed to donate to challengers only next year, as many others are, so when this is over send us your suggestions.

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

by: worldlymother @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 19:46:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

A couple of points (4.00 / 7)

Abortion is such a personal thing...

Exactly, and that why we should not be dictating or legislating other people's choices about it or access to it.

Health care, on the other hand is a no-brainer.

Reproductive health care is part of health care. And for women, a particularly critical part.

by: Oaktown Girl @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 21:26:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

how can you not condemn someone who votes to allow a public healthcare programme to deny coverage for abortions to women (4.00 / 2)

1. This totally denies individual choice in the structure of the programme.
2. There are other fora to deal with abortion.
3. This is totally classist. It's working class women (especially younger ones) who will be least likely to be able to access abortions. Wealthier women will always be able to move to states or simply travel somewhere to get a safe, legal abortion. And it is obviously sexist. Women who are pregnant are not brainless or stupid or without a sense of humanity.
4. Who the f"£k is Stupak or anyone else in this male-dominated but more relevantly entirely sexist body to decide what should or should not be provided to women. At minimum, Why don't they let the women's caucus in Congress, such as it is, decide? Of course, if they were willing to do that, this wouldn't even be an issue...much like if Congress were actually representative by proportion of the population or electorate or even close on the number of women and feminists.

by: dr anonymous @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 11:05:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Ooooh, here's a plan we can all support.. (4.00 / 2)

Bust our asses to dump any Democrat that votes for the Republican Alternative.

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

by: worldlymother @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 20:03:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Also... (0.00 / 0)

... is there anywhere that has current updates with what's going on right NOW?

by: jlars @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 18:43:04 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

you might want to try (0.00 / 0)

dday at Firedoglake.

http://news.firedoglake.com/

by: bystander @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 18:46:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

new word in the lexicon (4.00 / 7)

Saturday, November 07, 2009
Let It Be So
Stupak (n) - The sepsis commonly experienced after unsafe back alley abortions

-Atrios 20:01

by: bystander @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 19:17:30 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Ignorant question, but (0.00 / 0)

If it fails on voice vote, why do they still need to do a roll call?

by: wilder @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 19:38:57 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I think for a voice vote, the result has to be unanimous... (0.00 / 0)

...or something like that?

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

by: lord_mike @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 19:45:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Basically. (4.00 / 2)

At any rate, not close.

by: nvalvo @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 19:53:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

on the quick math (0.00 / 0)

You'd think that if Shadegg and his people are serious then they'd do it with the bare minimum, and the safest seats. "Pro-life" groups will be very mad.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 20:17:19 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

is the GOP trying to get the Stupak amendment (0.00 / 0)

to fail?

by: bennytoothpick @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 20:19:09 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Possibly (0.00 / 0)

They might view it as the only way to defeat the bill.

However, both Pelosi and Stupak say there are enough votes to pass HCR no matter what happens on Stupak.

by: Chris Bowers @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 20:29:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

It would amuse me greatly (4.00 / 1)

If Stupak's bluff fooled not just Pelosi, but also Shadegg into thinking that the lack of the Stupak amendment on the bill would cause enough D's to oppose it so that it fails.

by: Daniel De Groot @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 20:35:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Yes....assuming that if that fails, then the main bill... (0.00 / 0)

...wouldn't have the votes to pass without it...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

by: lord_mike @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 21:04:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

If it passes, (0.00 / 0)

would the Dem leadership be able to strip it when they merge the House and Senate bills? What are the rules on merging bills with amendments or other major policy features that are present on only one version. Can they strip it? Would they "average" it by stripping the amendment of much of its power?

I should have taken an American government class in college...

by: Oly @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 20:39:06 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Well, it seems my answer was just put up (0.00 / 0)

at Daily Kos. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/7/801897/-What-is-that-orange-guy-talking-about

Boehner is trying to get Dem leaders to promise that if the devil amendment passes, it will remain after the merger. Thankfully, he's not getting any assurances.

by: Oly @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 20:46:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Yes, they CAN strip it... (4.00 / 1)

....'cos the Senate version doesn't have it at all, and supposedly Obama promised to make sure it got stripped.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

by: lord_mike @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 21:05:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Hooray! (0.00 / 0)

by: Oly @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 21:11:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

52 D Yeahs and counting? WTF? (4.00 / 2)

by: supag32 @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 21:12:38 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Up to 57 at the moment.... (4.00 / 2)

There is going to be some hell to pay for this!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

by: lord_mike @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 21:15:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

64 + 3 NV (0.00 / 0)

Vote not quite over.

by: LockeOak @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 21:17:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

64 votes! (0.00 / 0)

Some are speculating that this is considered to be a "freebie" for anyone who wants to "appear" moderate knowing that it will be taken out of conference....

Only 1 present vote amongst the R's....

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

by: lord_mike @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 21:18:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

The present vote was Shadegg... (0.00 / 0)

What a disappointment! We spent all this effort for fucking nothing!

GOP substitute coming up now.. Let's see if an blue dogs vote yes for it...

A gooper voting no? It must be Ron Paul...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

by: lord_mike @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 21:27:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Seriously. (4.00 / 3)

WTF? One quarter of the Democratic House caucus is anti choice?! Are you f'in kidding me?

Thank gawd it can be stripped in the merger.

by: Oly @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 21:21:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

hopefully it does get stripped (4.00 / 1)

and then PP and NARAL (and us) will have to do a lot of whipping to make sure the conference report can still pass

by: bennytoothpick @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 21:23:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Yeah, we'll probably have to give up something we really really want... (4.00 / 1)

to secure Obama's help in getting this atrocity out of the bill ;|

by: bmull @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 21:51:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

NARAL (4.00 / 2)

is a joke. They have as much clout as I do.

by: alex @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 21:52:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

It won't be stripped (4.00 / 4)

Obama said it would be.

I'm sure he's every bit as committed to that as he is to a robust public option.

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

by: Master Jack @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 21:49:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Who in the holy hell just voted yea on the Boehner amendment? (0.00 / 0)

by: LockeOak @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 21:22:14 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

N/m, that vote was removed. (0.00 / 0)

by: LockeOak @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 21:22:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

pro-choice (4.00 / 7)

why does someone who claim he's pro-choice voted yes for this?

freebie or no, this is unconscionable, this can only help your/our opponents

this shows the one that cast the vote isn't really pro-choice but an unprincipled hack like arlen specter
he/she can't be counted on to cast a pro-choice vote in the future

by: The Big Hurt @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 21:37:17 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Perriello voted Yay (4.00 / 2)

He is toast.

by: ben_nelsons_hair @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 21:48:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Freeeeedom to recieve GOVT health care!!!!!!!!!! (0.00 / 0)

Keep your hands off my Medicare Advantage!

by: supag32 @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 21:37:30 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

roll call (4.00 / 2)

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/200...

by: The Big Hurt @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 21:43:33 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Thanks. (0.00 / 0)

Montani semper liberi

by: Sadie Baker @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 21:51:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

SESTAK FOR (0.00 / 0)

SESTAK VOTED FOR STUPAK

by: art3 @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 21:56:10 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

now that's... (0.00 / 0)

ironic.

by: alex @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 21:58:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

OOPS WRONG (0.00 / 0)

OOOPS NO VOTED AGAINST SORRY

by: art3 @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 21:59:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

not according to the roll call: (0.00 / 0)

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/200...

by: bennytoothpick @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 21:59:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

good (0.00 / 0)

here I thought the guy was courting the progressive vote while making some crazy ass yea vote.

Glad he's a nay.

by: alex @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 22:03:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

arg... (4.00 / 2)

I'm a Cubs fan. I'm used to this type of emotion. I just hope that in my lifetime, I see Democrats grow a spine and actually create really good progressive policy. I'd rather that then see a Cubs World Series win.

by: alex @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 21:56:15 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

You are looking for a pony. (0.00 / 0)

by: ek hornbeck @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 22:06:30 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

3 more votes, baby.. c'mon!!! n/t (0.00 / 0)

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

by: lord_mike @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 22:06:53 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

2 more! C'mon!!! (0.00 / 0)

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

by: lord_mike @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 22:07:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

We did it!!! (4.00 / 1)

We did it!!!

Great shot, kid, now don't get cocky!!!

Cao votes for it! It's bipartisan!!! Holy shit!!!

Still waiting for the last D... who's the cowards...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

by: lord_mike @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 22:10:58 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Fuck Olympia Snowe (0.00 / 0)

It's bi-partisan-y now, don't need her anymore.

by: TeddySanFran @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 22:39:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Who is Robert Cao of Louisisana? What a guy! (0.00 / 0)

Must have balls of steel to vote against the party line on this one. Is he from an R district? Does it make sense to help him in the next election? Somehow, he has to get a reward for this.

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

by: Gray @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:37:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I think he ousted the 'money in the fridge' crooked D in LA (4.00 / 1)

D+31 district iirc

by: The Big Hurt @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 03:05:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Oh. My. God. (0.00 / 0)

Didn't they have any good liberal there who had the balls, and a lilywhite record, to run in that district after the desaster? This was a real srewup...

However, is Cao a RINO? Or just trying hard to make it look to his heavily liberal constituency like he's supporting their interests? Did the rethuglicans know the exact whip count, so they allowed him to cross lines?

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

by: Gray @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 03:25:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I don't know much about him... (0.00 / 0)

I see the district is D+25
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

we should be able to take it back in 2010
I don't know if there are any good liberal candidates there!

and wiki says he voted yes after the bill crossed 218:

Cao was the only Republican to vote for the Affordable Health Care for America Act on November 7, 2009, voting shortly after the bill received the necessary 218 votes needed for passage.[79][48]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...

here's his voting record:
http://www.votesmart.org/votin...

by: The Big Hurt @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:23:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Hmm. So, may be a pure alibi vote. (0.00 / 0)

Even though his resumee looks like he should have sympathy for the problems of average people, and healthcare is one of their most urgent issues...

However, a rethuglican in a solidly Dem district makes no sense. Especially in a region where the GOP lost all credibility after the Katrina desaster.

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

by: Gray @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 15:18:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Not only Catholic, but former Jesuit who studied for priesthood! (0.00 / 0)

Of Vietnamese heritage. Became attorney. Really, what a weird Resumee! Anh "Joesph" Cao (sry for getting the name wrong fistly), a true underdog, indeed:
http://thepublicsquare.blogspo...
http://josephcao.house.gov/Bio...

"However, his confidence in government's ability to care for those in need weakened by the day."
"In Washington, DC, he became an advocate for refugees, future Americans who embody a can-do spirit and strong work ethic."
"He became the in-house legal counsel for Boat People S.O.S, Inc., an organization helping poor Vietnamese and other minorities."
"Joseph Cao lost both his home and law office to Katrina."
"Like so many others, Joseph battled insurance companies and government bureaucracy to restore his home and business."

And such a guy is a RETHUGLICAN???

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

by: Gray @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 03:37:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Chris, do you think some of the 39 got 'freebies' (0.00 / 0)

From the leadership, who knew they had 218? It pisses me off that if so, these gutless pukes thought they NEEDED freebies, but I wonder.

by: Weeferdog @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 22:32:59 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Democrats Against (4.00 / 2)

Posted this in the Stupak names thread, but...

Here is a complete list of the Dems that voted against final passage.

Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Baird
Barrow
Boccieri
Boren
Boucher
Boyd
Bright
Chandler
Childers
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
Edwards (TX)
Gordon (TN)
Griffith
Herseth Sandlin
Holden
Kissell
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Markey (CO)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
McIntyre
McMahon
Melancon
Minnick
Murphy (NY)
Nye
Peterson
Ross
Shuler
Skelton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague

This is the list of Dems voting For the Stupak amendment and Against final passage.

Altmire
Barrow
Boccieri
Boren
Bright
Chandler
Childers
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
Gordon (TN)
Griffith
Holden
Marshall
Matheson
McIntyre
Melancon
Peterson
Ross
Shuler
Skelton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague

by: EricV @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 22:44:23 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

To highlight the latter... (4.00 / 2)

Anyone who votes against the overall bill, but voted in favor of this amendment, should be primaried. And defeating them with a pro-choice, pro-health care candidate should be doable, in any district in the country.

by: EricV @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 22:46:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

primaries (4.00 / 2)

If you combine this list with the PVI scores of these reps' districts, and order it from least to most Republican-leaning, it seems to me you'd have a near-perfect guide for where primaries should be targeted.

by: Chachy @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 22:50:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

No (4.00 / 1)

they should ALL be primaried. They are an anchor that needs to be cut loose if this ship is going to stay afloat.

Montani semper liberi

by: Sadie Baker @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 06:20:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Hmm, ok, Sadie, but Cachie has a point. (0.00 / 0)

Progressives shouldn't try to shoulder more than they can handle. With limited tresources, it's best to pick the fights where you have the best chance and get the highest returns. And picking up too much at once is the sure way to waste your strength. So, progressives should start with attacking the worst Dems, and gradually expand the scope with a steady look at the polls. Challenging everybody, only to unseat nobody, would be the worst possible result.

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

by: Gray @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 08:41:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

how are these not the worst dems? (4.00 / 1)

like it or not, health care is the major political issue that attempst to assist some people and also helps the Democratic party restore its reputation as an organisation that can actually accomplish something on purely practical terms. How is a divisive amendment like this allowable? Are they stupid? And how is voting against health care and completely purposelessly voting against women's rights - this is a slap in the face that has potentially severe consequences and could result in deaths! - not criteria for evaluating the worst dems?

the only POSSIBLE defense of even considering such a vote is to argue that the constituents have these sentiments. But then, if that is the case, why support a proposal that would undermine the rights of people in other places that don't agree? Why should poor people in Boston be denied reproductive health coverage because people in some other place agree? There is no sound reason to vote for this, on democratic (small D), practical, humane, or other grounds.

by: dr anonymous @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 11:11:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Uh, doc, no isunderstanding, I'm FOR challenging the no voters. (0.00 / 0)

I just supported Cachies point that the worst cases, those who have a bad scorecard even though they sitr in blue districts, should be attacked first. So, you're somewhat preaching to the choir.

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

by: Gray @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 13:15:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

i don't think there's a 'first' and a 'second' (0.00 / 0)

i think from an electoral approach, progressives need to make a case by case assessment based on an overall strategy of what you're looking to do (e.g. do you want to strengthen the progressive caucus in congress? do you want to strengthen the democratic/centre-right republican base against the republican wingnuts? etc.).

mainly i was just venting. i agree that every politician needs to be evaluated against their district, in the context of that broader strategy, to determine who and when and where to support anyone. if you're into that kind of thing.

by: dr anonymous @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 17:49:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

btw don't take 'i was just venting' as a sign that the issue wasn't serious (0.00 / 0)

it's just a question of which issues you're willing to hold your nose on. but for the half of the electorate (more than half among democratic primaries) that are women and/or feminists, i can see why these might end up being your primary targets upon reflection. especially given how desperately we need a broadbased, active, outspoken, direct, and empowered feminist movement nowadays.

by: dr anonymous @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 17:51:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]