Brian Baird WA 03 (4.00 / 3)

I live near Olympia and know people who were shocked he voted against the health care bill.  So there are people who can be awakened and mobilized to raise the volume there.  He doesn't represent his constituents when he votes it down.  No, I don't know this by polling, but by past understanding of his district and where it fits in WA state voting patterns.  

It's worth a try, so I think he should be listed in the group that could be swayed, particularly since his reasons don't make sense to the average person.  He wanted something different and didn't get it, is my read on it. I'm going to look into ways to get a message across to his district and see where that leads, then deliver to friends and family in Olympia.

---

by: mission419 @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 21:17:12 PM UTC

Betsy Markey (CO-04) is Suffering A HUGE Ad Blitz! (4.00 / 3)

Markey replaced right-wing scumbag and anti-gay activist Marilyn Musgrave. Right now in Denver the insurance lobby and Chamber of Commerce has been running millions of dollars in non-stop ads against Markey "tell Betsy Markey to vote no on socialized medicine!" etc.

She is running scared. CO-04 is rural eastern Colorado and is very likely to revert to Republicans in 2010 since they have a decided voter advantage there. She's trying to run to the right which seems pointless.

But that's what all the insider advisers must be telling their candidates: "pose as a moderate by opposing health care or the insurance lobby will destroy you in the election."

But the people who might be happy she voted down health care will be the same people who will never in hell vote for her anyway. And she's basically not giving anybody a reason to vote FOR her!

Like every other imperiled Democrat, she needs to stand up and vote for the final bill because if if passes she can say "See! It doesn't have death panels."

The elderly will NEVER be convinced that the bill does not call for killing old people. My own mother insists that she "heard somebody admit it" that old people "will be given a pill". She's 82 and there's no trying to reason with her.

I imagine there are a LOT of people in that class who simply get all their information from Fox News and won't believe that everything they are told are cynical lies to manipulate them.

---

by: Cugel @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 00:48:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well (4.00 / 1)

Like every other imperiled Democrat, she needs to stand up and vote for the final bill because if if passes she can say "See! It doesn't have death panels."

Well, if there's no reasoning with people, why would this do any good?

I hate to say it, but I have family in Loveland and Markey scored points with them for opposing the bill and they're Democrats, granted "small government" Democrats, whatever the fuck that means...should she survive in 2010, she'll end up getting a much friendlier Larimer County district in redistricting.

Anyway, she was one of the group of whipped yesses Pelosi allowed to vote no to save face.  

---

by: DTOzone @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 02:27:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

typo: Adler in NJ2 (0.00 / 0)

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 21:18:44 PM UTC

Murphy NY-20 said he expects to vote for the final bill (0.00 / 0)

---

by: DTOzone @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 21:23:45 PM UTC

Citizen Action, MoveOn and DFA are keeping the pressure on Murphy (4.00 / 1)

A large fraction of the hardest working volunteers who helped win this historically GOP district are letting Murphy know that they felt betrayed by his vote against the House bill.

This is the district that regularly elected Gerry (burn the first amendment) Solomon and John (Brooks Brothers Riot) Sweeney.  Turning it blue was a LOT of work.  People didn't think they would have to bust their asses again every time a tough issue comes up for a vote.  

Hinchey's adjacent district used to elect Repugs, but he stands up for what he believes, as one of the most outspoken progressives, and his constituents love him for it.

There is no such thing as a free market.

---

by: Albanius @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 02:33:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The progressives better be there (0.00 / 0)

Assuming reasonable a public option is included, the progressives on that list better be there if needed on a final passage vote...

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

---

by: Steve in Sacto @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 21:24:05 PM UTC

This is good work, an effective goal, and its slowly develoiping targets. Thanks n/t (4.00 / 3)

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 21:25:21 PM UTC

9 Stupaks (4.00 / 1)

May be hard to budge.  Eight of the nine are Catholics (Solomon Ortiz is listed as Methodist).  Most Catholics in the House are Democrats; most voted against Stupak.  Those in the Stupak camp are probably pretty hard line.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 21:40:51 PM UTC

Baird - WA 3 (0.00 / 0)

Baird is possible. He said he wouldn't vote for the bill until it got scored by the CBO; now there should be time for that score.

Baird is an extremely quirky MOC, and is known for his temper and his erratic behavior.

He's been increasingly conservative since getting elected, post 2010 his district will get more conservative. Remember he is a "Bush Dog" democrat who voted for the surge.

---

by: raincityman @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 22:30:29 PM UTC

I'm not sure about Kaptur (4.00 / 1)

She might not be as easy a target as you think, considering that she co-sponsored the Stupak amendment.  I suspect it might be easier to get her on board if the Stupak amendment's language is allowed onto the floor of the Senate and voted down.  

In fact, that might be a possible compromise to be offered to Stupak's group, that they will vote for a conference bill that doesn't include the Stupak amendment if it is given an up-and-down vote in the Senate and fails (or if Republicans block it from coming to the floor).  I have no idea if such an amendment would actually pass the Senate, but I think it works best if Democrats are willing to gamble and offer a vote while no one is sure of how it will go down.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 22:46:13 PM UTC

stupakniks (0.00 / 0)

I think those that voted to support Stupak will find it a lot tougher to vote against the final version of the bill.  Once it is out of conference and an eyelash from becoming law, the pressure is going to be immense to do the right thing.

---

by: global yokel @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 02:59:30 AM UTC

Kissell (0.00 / 0)

I seriously do not understand where this dude is coming from. He is not my rep but I sent him $ and phone banked for him. He claims that the problem with the health care reform bill is that it undermines medicare and threatens elderly constituents with higher costs. Yet his NC Dem colleagues, including David Price, have ensured him that this is not the case. I just cannot fathom what his thinking is. Nevertheless, I know that he is in a pretty red district (formerly held by Republican Robin Hayes) and is perhaps prone to tacking centrist. But so many people in NC are hurting I can't understand why he isn't taking a more populist stance against corporate medicine, big pharma, the insurance companies, etc.

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

---

by: jeffbinnc @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 03:12:27 AM UTC

Actually .. no .. (0.00 / 0)

Nevertheless, I know that he is in a pretty red district (formerly held by Republican Robin Hayes) and is perhaps prone to tacking centrist.

Both Kissell and Obama carried it pretty handily

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 03:22:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Everything's relative (0.00 / 0)

Kissell won 55-45, Obama just 52-47.  Cook rates it R+2.  It's a swing district.

---

by: dedelste @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 15:51:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Do we all understand that ridding the bill of Stupak (0.00 / 0)

won't change the status quo of the 1977 Hyde amendment that prohibits federal funding to be used for abortion?

Hyde language is already in the health bill, even without Stupak. An article by Jessica Arons, excerpted below, explains:
http://www.americanprogress.or...

Opponents and supporters of abortion rights agreed early on, in theory, to maintain the "status quo" with "abortion neutral" health care legislation. The idea was that health care reform is not the appropriate place to continue the fight over abortion and neither side should attempt to use health care reform as a vehicle to further expand or restrict access to abortion.

In pursuit of this objective, Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) introduced an amendment in the House Energy and Commerce Committee that attempted to strike a balance and preserve the status quo on abortion funding. This proposal was adopted and ultimately included in the original House bill. The Senate Finance Committee also passed a bill that closely mirrors the Capps Amendment's treatment of abortion funding.

Stupak significantly expands Hyde and should absolutely be striken, but there's another problem.

According to debcoop's diary above on Stupak the liar -

Hyde should be repealed...but repealing Hyde  would not eliminate it from the Health Reform Act.  Hyde is a  restriction on the federal budget which must be reauthorized each year.  The Stupak amendment would be a continuing  provision in the health care reform bill.  Repealing Hyde would still leave it intact.

If this is correct about the Stupak amendment, then passing the health bill with the Capps amendment would also codify Hyde.

---

by: Upward and Onward @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 04:46:08 AM UTC

Yes it would (4.00 / 1)

Not in defense of CAPPS, which was a compromise I don't think needed to be made either----it does allow abortion coverage in the exchanges. Becasue federal money does not taint the pool.   And since in terms of sheer actuarial, financial issues, abortion is cheaper for insurance companies than maternity care or birth and its attendant complications, abortion coverage should be able to maintain itself in the exchanges.  

In the public option there must be one plan that provides abortion and one that doesn't.  But funding streams and accounting mechanism must and can be segregated.  The impact of this on the willingness of insurance companies to put forward plans with abortion is a little bit more unclear. Doable theretically but in a real marketplace who knows.

The Minimum Benefits Package in the public option can not MANDATE abortion coverage, though plans may have them...may being very much the operative word legally.

I am concerned that the Minimum Benefits Package is what women ins their 20's who are healthy, of child bearing age and feeling invulnerable would choose because the likelihood that it would be cheaper.

So yes CAPPS does put Hyde into the healthcare bill...and politically it wasn't necessary because CAPPS was meant to ward off Stupak --like garlic warding off a vampire -- but it obviously didn't.

But if Hyde is repealed,  I think getting it out of healthcare,  where it affects millions more women and so makes real to millions of women what it actually means,  makes repeal in both places more  feasible.

Not that it's a bowl of cherries...more like Sisyphus..well more like climbing Everest in 5000 ft ascents, from freezing base camp to a higher freezing base camp.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 05:13:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Kanjorski, Driehaus and Dahlkemper (0.00 / 0)

Those three are vulnerable.

Kanjorski has historically underperformed and is probably going to face a primary because of it. He's been getting tough on the banks, most likely to cover his flanks, but healthcare is at least as likely to put him in shit. An announcement from a representative collection of blogosphere notables that they'll endorse and work for any primary opponent if he votes against the final bill might help.

Driehaus is in a fairly marginal district (he largely relied upon the Obama wave), and he's been pretty disappointing. Southern Ohio also has its fair share of minor party candidates. Add in a challenger from the left in the general, and he's toast in 2010. And since he's fairly junior and useless in the clinch, he'd be high on my list of representatives who could be sacrificed pour encourager les autres.

A similar situation applies to Dahlkemper. She's not as bad as Driehaus, but it does seem like abortion is a key issue for her, so she'll be hard to swing. That said, this is a union district and if a few of them could be convinced to back a Working Families (or equivalent) candidate, she wouldn't be able to hold the district.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 12:45:32 PM UTC