Bush Dog SCHIP Update: What the hell is wrong with Jim Marshall, and these five others?

by: Matt Stoller

Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 19:47


These six Bush Dogs voted against health care for kids.

Rep. Gene Taylor [MS-04]
Rep. Mike McIntyre [D, NC-7]
Rep. James Marshall [D, GA-8]
Rep. Baron Hill [D, IN-9]
Rep. Bob Etheridge [D, NC-2]
Rep. Dan Boren [D, OK-2]

There is no reason for them to be Democrats.  No, as we've seen, the vote for Speaker doesn't matter.  These two members also voted against health care for children.

Rep. Kathy Castor [D, FL-11]
Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D, OH-10]

I'm glad Kucinich is getting a primary challenger.  His time is over.

And Bairdwatch is now live.

The corporate PAC money is rolling in now, so insiders don't care about us.  But it's going to get very nasty soon in the Democratic Party.

Matt Stoller :: Bush Dog SCHIP Update: What the hell is wrong with Jim Marshall, and these five others?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Bush Dog SCHIP Update: What the hell is wrong with Jim Marshall, and these five others? | 31 comments
pathetic (0.00 / 0)
We've got my Republican, Frank LoBiondo, and two other New Jersey Republican congressmen on board, but these "Democrats" can't vote for expanding an existing program? 


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
Kucinich a Bush Dog? (0.00 / 0)
While you might not agree with Kucinich's take on this legislation.  It is not exactly to the point to lump him so. If there is more to this it deserves elaboration.
I don't think he was lumped in. (4.00 / 1)
That's why he got a separate section from the Bush Dogs.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
The bill excludes coverage for legal immigrant children... (4.00 / 3)
...and that's why he voted against it.

Dennis isn't much of a team player as far as I can tell, but shouldn't we have a rule against firing to the left?  If he wants to be out there expanding the Overton window in the progressive direction, good for him.  That's what we need more of in this country, isn't it?

I've been seeing a lot of anti-Kucinich stuff around the blogosphere lately.  Is there some specific substantive reason why we're all supposed to hate him now, or is it just that some of us are desperate to have a turn being the "serious people" for a change.  It's fun to join in the bashing of the "loony left" when it's somebody else getting beat up, I guess.  Human nature, probably.

But shouldn't we, as a matter of principle and strategy, not engage in that sort of thing.  Aren't we always saying that to the people who do it to us?

[ Parent ]
Pathetic excuse (0.00 / 0)
I am furious with Kucinich.

If he is part of the scuttling this plan I will drive from Columbus OH out to his district and volunteer with whoever primaries against him.

This is a stupid approach. He should vote for it, and then once it is in place and doing well, write a bill to expand it to those children.

It seems so counter intuitive I wonder if there is alterior motive involved.

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

[ Parent ]
A progressive moral reason (0.00 / 0)
I don't understand why some "progressive" bloggers seemingly distain Dennis Kucinich. They rarely pass up an opportunity to beat him down. And for what?

Whether by intent or accident, including Kucinich's name in this post criticizing "Bush Dogs" implicitly and wrongly impugns Dennis' character and judgement. Dennis is no Bush Dog.

As you stated, Dennis explained his reason for opposing this bill, which is tantamount to health care apartheid for children. Yet, other Democrats would rationalize their vote to deny health care to children who reside here legally upon the primacy of "doing the deal," rather than doing what is right.

More than most, Kucinich's position on many issues epitomizes those expressed by many "progressive" bloggers. For instance, Kucinich has the most progressive position and the clearest vision on the top two issues of our time: Iraq and Healthcare. The so called "top-tier" presidential candidates adored by some "progressive" bloggers support sustaining the occupation in Iraq, and mandate participation in corporate-controlled access to healthcare. Kucinich, on the other hand, supports ending the occupation of Iraq, and envisions health care as a cradle-to-grave right guaranteed by the public and not by insurance companies.

Indeed, it's okay to take Kucinich to task when gets wrong, but "progressive" bloggers need to get off of his back and give him props when he's gets it right as he did on this bill.

[ Parent ]
Because (0.00 / 0)
He lets the perfect defeat the good.  In this case his vote didn't make the difference, but if there's a tight vote, can we count on him if the bill isn't exactly what he wants? He may have the luxury of engaging in exercises of principle, but these are real kids that he went on record denying health care to. His air of moral superiority doesn't get them vaccinated.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.
[ Parent ]
Nonsense. (4.00 / 1)
Buying the "lets the perfect defeat the good" crap is one of the reasons why Democrats will never deliver on a progressive agenda that is principled and good. It isn't an either-or dilemma.

Conversely, you never hear Republicans whining, "well, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." No, they take their conservative agenda and ram it repeatedly down the Democrats' throats until they scream, "mmm, tastes like chicken!"

His vote was not an exercise in principle; it was the right vote. What is "good" about a bill that cut's off health care to needy American children? Are you suggesting that American immigrant children aren't real kids? Please.

[ Parent ]
Hold fire--for now (0.00 / 0)
Key vote is the veto override. If Dennis votes to support veto, then all bets are off. He deserves to be a target.
[ Parent ]
like the 50-state strategy? (4.00 / 1)
"The corporate PAC money is rolling in now, so insiders don't care about us.  But it's going to get very nasty soon in the Democratic Party."

This is just me wondering aloud -- I haven't thought this through -- but I wonder if the surge in lobbyist money to Dems isn't just because the Republicans are unpopular/not controlling congress; but also because of netroots money competing for influence?

One aspect of the 50-state strategy was that it caused the Republicans to have to spend money all over the place, fighting for seats they thought they had locked up. 

Can a similar tactical advantage be gained by causing big money to have to compete for influence w/in the Democratic Party?  How would that work?

Barry

Controlling party ... (0.00 / 0)
Barry:
You forgot one thing.  Corporate PAC money is now flowing in because the Dems are in the majority.  That's what it really boils down to, not because the Republicans are unpopular.
[ Parent ]
Who's Primarying Kucinich? (4.00 / 2)
One of Emanual's lot?  Wondering if it's: better the guy you know than a DINO you don't know?

Allegedly she's a progressive (4.00 / 2)
But a lot of her rhetoric against Kucinich is that he's too partisan.

Much as I think Kucinich was wrong on this vote, his vote wasn't crucial and he was flagging up what he could quite reasonably view as being an unnecessary compromise.

The problem with Kucinich is not that he's absurdly far to the left. It's that he's the only one there. In so far as his primary challenge revolves around poor constituent services, I can understand that, but I don't think there are ideological grounds to chuck him under the bus.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
We would loose a lot if lost Kucinich (4.00 / 1)
  I admit that I wish Kucinich had not run for President this time but my main reason was it opens him up to a challenge where he might loose his Congressional seat.
  Kucinich was one of the few people that would take the heat to say we should cover immigrant children.  That is a very unpopular statement in today's environment.
  He was one of the few people that questioned the WMD in Iraq and he did publicly and often in the build up to the war.
Not one of the major Democratic Presidential Candidates actually said it so forcefully not even the one I am supporting.  Everyone else was hedging their bets.  I watched CSPAN and saw Kucinich really grilling people about the findings.
  He has worked tirelessly for a single payer health care system
He has taken unpopular stands and has been unwilling to compromise with big corporations.
  His record is great on environment and on labor.
So we should replace him with a middle of the road Democrat that is more to Hoyer and Emanuel's liking? 
  I don't live in Ohio but after the debates more often than not many people come up and say to me it is too bad that Kucinich has no chance because he is the only one making sense.
  If I did live in Ohio I would work for Kucinich because we need his voice and his clear thinking.
  We need people in Congress like Kucinich because he is one of a handful that does not bow to the pressure of the corporate owners.  There aren't very many and we can not afford to loose even one.
  So Matt careful what you wish for because you just might get it.  Another Bush Dog in a Democratic District.
[ Parent ]
Jim Marshall ... (4.00 / 3)

... says he wants a better bill :

Earlier today, the House voted to extend SCHIP's authorization until the debate over the program's expansion is resolved. There's no question that I support expanding SCHIP.

But I also have an obligation to the citizens of Middle Georgia to do everything possible to make sure that the program in its final form fairly distributes the burden and fairly distributes the benefits.

Expanding SCHIP is among my highest priorities — and it should be among everyone's highest priorities - but it's also critically important that Congress and the President get this right.

Marshall was the only Democrat who didn't vote for the bill that passed Tuesday with a less-than-veto-proof margin. We're told that Marshall had several problems with the measure: the size and instability of the tobacco tax increase; the lack of a standard applications for every state; and a lax identification process that Marshall - like Republican Nathan Deal - said would make the program easy for illegal immigrants to abuse.

The implication being that he expects to vote for the measure when it comes up again, if his objections are satisfied.

I can keep my face straight. I can keep my face st... aw, hell, I'm snorting at this spin job already.


No difference? (4.00 / 2)
I agree with the title of the post, and the main theme: what the hell are these people thinking? But I just have to register a protest on the line "the vote for Speaker doesn't matter". I know you are mad at the Democrats, so am I on a great many things, but come on. If you're working a minimum wage job, it matters a lot. If you're a student needing loans and grants, it matters a lot. If you like Waxman's ability to investigate Halliburton and Blackwater, it matters a lot. If you want Conyers to have a check on abuses of the patriot act, it matters a lot. If you want to keep the heat on in terms of passing SCHIP, or a decent energy bill, it matters a lot.
Democrats in congress don't have the guts to stop funding the war, or do the right thing on FISA, and that's a tragedy. But to say there is no difference between Pelosi and Boehner as Speaker is bullshit.
Does it matter? .. (4.00 / 1)
Where is the inherent contempt for Condi?  or Harrist Miers?  Or whomever else didn't show when subpoenaed?
[ Parent ]
I have to hold my nose and agree with you... (0.00 / 0)
Republican control IS worse.

Still, this is really disheartening. I guess the lesson is that fighting against the influence of big money in politics is harder than just "kicking the rascals out." The republicans are gone, but now it's easy for corporatists to buy influence in the Democratic party, as well.

I'm worried that by the time 2009 comes around, and there is no veto standing in the way, so many Democrats will be so thoroughly bought that there will not be any progress made on big issues, like health care and climate change.



ec=-8.50 soc=-8.41   (3,967 Watts)

[ Parent ]
By running national strategy around these districts. . . (0.00 / 0)
we risk losing more attainable seats nationwide than we would hold by remaining hostage to reactionaries.

The party is about incumbency protection, not change.  That's the point.

[ Parent ]
a little unfair to Kucinich (0.00 / 0)
Although I am not really a Kucinich supporter, I do not think that he should be lumped in with the Bush Dog thread. I think his rational for voting against SCHIP was certainly for a different reason. I would equate it to some of Russ Feingold's votes.
Rep. Kathy Castor (0.00 / 0)
Here's why Rep. Kathy Castor voted against it. I couldn't figure out why on earth she would be voting against it but this  at least explains her reasons. From TBO.com, 9/25/07:

"Castor has made no secret that she puts the needs of children over those of cigar manufacturers in her district and supports renewing and expanding SCHIP. But after outcries from Tampa Bay area cigar manufacturers, she insisted that she also worked hard to lower the initially proposed tax increase.

The initial proposal would have raised the current 5-cent-a-cigar tax to 53 percent of the manufacturing costs, with a cap at $10 each. With the help of fellow Florida Democratic Rep. Kendrick Meek, Castor was able to cut that to 33 percent with a $1 cap in the House bill.

But in the Senate, Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson was less successful than Castor in persuading colleagues to lower the cap, and Monday night's agreement with the Senate says 52.9 percent and a $3 cap.

Even a $3 cap carries "dire consequences" for the industry, says Norman Sharp, president of the Cigar Manufacturers Association of America. He said his group supports improving children's health care, but hopes Bush will veto the measure.

Castor could not immediately be reached for comment Tuesday."

http://www.tboblogs....

John McCain

That's pretty terrible (0.00 / 0)
So basically she should be lumped in with the Bush Dogs, not with Kucinich in terms of opposition.

"She puts the needs of children over those of cigar manufacturers in her district" - Yeah, I don't think that one is going to fly

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Holding Democrats Hostage (0.00 / 0)
Hoyer/Emanuel say we have to run Republican strategies to save the likes of these characters.  Thus the party is held hostage to these few incumbents.

In doing so, we risk losing several attainable seats elsewhere in the country where actual Democrats are running.  But what matters is incumbency protection, apparently.

Neat trick.  Conveniently in Emanuel's and Hoyers financial interests, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Meanwhile, if you give to the DCCC, these are the people you're funding.  That's where they're sending the money.

I am now turning down DCCC solicitations (0.00 / 0)
I politely explain to the phone-banker that I am only contributing to individual members of Congress, because I lack confidence in the DCCC leadership.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
[ Parent ]
You sure about this, Matt? (0.00 / 0)
It seems out of character for Matt Stoller to be attacking Kucinich for trying to defend the rights of immigrants, especially when he stands alone to do so.
The original House bill--which Kucinich voted for--covered health care for legal immigrants.  That, unfortunately, was stripped in committee, so Kucinich voted to defend their rights--which is exactly what his statement says.
Yet he has been widely attacked on the blogs, by Kos (out of context, with another of his vicious "ugh" slams), by James L. at Swing State Project, by the Kucinich-haters at Blue State Blog--and now by Matt Stoller.
You think it's right that legal immigrants got screwed?  And if not, should no one say anything, even on a vote that wasn't close to failing?
It might help people focus if they knew what the National Council of La Raza had to say: 
"When Congress debates the vital issue of expanding access to health care for the nation's children, it is inexcusable to exclude a significant group of vulnerable children," said Janet Murguía, NCLR's President and CEO. "We cannot celebrate an expansion of health coverage when so many of our children are left behind."
Only Kucinich paid any attention to NCLR.  Maybe you disagree with them/him.  But the attack is unfair.

Really? (0.00 / 0)
Is that the result of his vote? Cause I could've sworn he was mostly spitting in the wind.  Call me as soon as his sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, never compromise strategy gets a few kids some healthcare.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.
[ Parent ]
Overly harsh (0.00 / 0)
It's not a "sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, never compromise" vote. It's a protest vote to raise attention to one group which has been left out, and not for any very good reason.

I'll join you in condeming them if he doesn't join for the veto override, but I think that as a statement vote it has a lot going for it.

Primary Castor for somebody who won't betray us to Big Tobacco. Walk on the other side of the road when the Bush Dogs ask us for money so they can spit in our faces. But when it doesn't affect the outcome, don't condemn those who are trying to shift the debate in your direction.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
How is standing up for legal immigrants holier-than-thou? (0.00 / 0)
And if it is, shouldn't you be, too?
Remember, he voted for the first bill, so your "never compromise" criticism is off base.  And I'm not sure how standing up for immigrant kids is sanctimonious.
The disrespect for Kucinich continues to astound me.  The blogosphere will forgive their favorites for voting wrong on the war, for continuing to fund it, for voting for the Patriot Act, for threatening war with Iran, for selling out on trade--but spits out their contempt for Kucinich for the sin of standing up for immigrants? 
[ Parent ]
It's the Smokers...Tobacco Smokers (0.00 / 0)
I'm NOT defending the turncoat, anti-child health BushDogs but the reason for thier vote is clear.  Tobacco addicts vote, kids don't.  SCHIP is funded by increased tobacco taxes.  The Tobacco lobby doesn't talk to Matt Stoller or the rest of you.  Big Tobacco does talk to voters in the districts in question.  if anyone thinks that Big Tobacco is dead, you are just wrong.
Come on, Matt (0.00 / 0)
Just like when Obama abstained on the vote to condemn MoveOn in the Senate, Kucinich has a sound reason for his vote. Shame on you for leaving that context out of the original post. It's also highly ironic that while you crusade against conservative House Democrats, you've just simultaneously endorsed what is certain to be a primary challenger to the right of Kucinich.

I did not know that coverage for undocumented immigrants had been stripped from the SCHIP bill, and I bet a whole lot of us still wouldn't know that if Kucinich hadn't used his vote to bring attention to it.

Where are the primary opponents? (0.00 / 0)
There are three Bush Dogs in NC NC-02: Bob Etheridge, NC-07: Mike McIntyre, NC-11: Heath Schuler- why is no one signing up to primary them?
Bush Dog SCHIP Update: What the hell is wrong with Jim Marshall, and these five others? | 31 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox