Open Left

It needed those 8 Republicans

Those 8 are going to be crucified in the wingnutosphere.

John McCain won't insure children

---

by: magster @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 18:26:32 PM CDT

True...

But depending on the district they're in, they might have had to in order to win reelection.  

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

---

by: Andrew Davey @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 18:30:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

three from NJ

Lance, LoBiondo, and Smith.  The last of the moderate Repubs.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 18:58:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Other 5

Castle, Kirk, Bono, McHugh, Reichert.  

---

by: David Kowalski @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 00:04:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Kudos to those eight. Profiles in courage!

Well, at least I hope they voted for this out of sincere concern about global warming, and not just because they think this may go down well with their more centrist constituencies.

---

by: Gray @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 04:52:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I read that 3 of the D "no" votes

voted no because the bill was too weak. Looking at the roll call, the obvious names that jump out are Kucinich and DeFazio. Anyone know the third?

It's pathetic that even with all the concessions to regional and corporate interests, 41 Ds voted no because the bill was supposedly too strong.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 19:42:54 PM CDT

Two More

Mitchell (AZ) and Stark (CA) both stated that they voted "no" because the bill was too watered down.

---

by: hilltopper @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 20:06:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't understand that logic

You tried to get a stronger bill and it didn't happen.  Isn't this better than nothing happening.   I'd rather fight hard and eventually have to make some concessions, rather than just keep the status quo because i didn't win.

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 22:58:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I do.

Passing a bad bill is worse than passing no bill at all.  The reason for this is that by the time enough legislators realize it was insufficient (assuming it passes) or destructive, it'll be far more difficult to pass good legislation.  The momentum for it simply won't be there.

The problem with this and other bills, including the so-called public option, is that they start out already very weak and end up being gutted throughout the legislative process.  That's a horrible way to try to negotiate, coming to the table having already compromised on everything important.  You come to the table demanding 100%, and maybe settling for 85-90%.  The Democrats are coming to the table meekly asking for 1%, if that, and giving away about 50-75% of that.

---

by: Michael Kwiatkowski @ Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 12:26:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Interesting

I knew about Stark. Didn't think that was why Mitchell voted against it. He's a Blue Dog. He does have a decent, if factually incorrect statement about it.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

---

by: Populista @ Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 23:53:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]