Here are the names of at least some of the Democratic congressmen running for re-election who voted "yes" on this monstrosity of a health care bill in flagrant violation of the will of their constituents. Every one of these districts is a Republican-leaning district that either supported Bush in 2004, McCain in 2008, or both Bush and McCain. Since Obama's approval rating is running far below his 2008 election performance, we can be virtually certain that ObamaCare is very unpopular in all of these districts. We the American voters MUST make sure that the overwhelming majority of these congressmen are added to the swelling ranks of the unemployed in this country as a result of the November election. Voters must send a message to all politicians everywhere that we will not tolerate what the Democrats have done on health care. If even some of these congressmen get away with their vote, we can expect even more callous disregard for public opinion in future decisions of Congress. To ensure that government in this country remains "by the people and for the people," it is extremely urgent that most or all of these members lose in November:
1. Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-1)
2. Harry Mitchell (AZ-5)
3. Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8)
4. Jerry McNerney (CA-11)
5. Dennis Cardoza (CA-18)
6. Loretta Sanchez (CA-47)
7. John Salazar (CO-3)
8. Betsy Markey (CO-4)
9. Allen Boyd (FL-2)
10. Alan Grayson (FL-8)
11. Ron Klein (FL-22)
12. Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24)
13. Melissa Bean (IL-8)
14. Deborah Halvorson (IL-11)
15. Bill Foster (IL-14)
16. Joe Donnelly (IN-2)
17. Brad Ellsworth (IN-8) - actually running for Senate instead of for re-election
18. Baron Hill (IN-9)
19. Leonard Boswell (IA-3)
20. Bart Stupak (MI-1)
21. Mark Schauer (MI-7)
22. Gary Peters (MI-9)
23. Tim Walz (MN-1)
24. Dina Titus (NV-3)
25. Carol Shea-Porter (NH-2)
26. Tim Bishop (NY-1)
27. John Hall (NY-19)
28. Scott Murphy (NY-20)
29. Bill Owens (NY-23)
30. Bob Etheridge (NC-2)
31. Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL)
32. Steve Driehaus (OH-1)
33. Charlie Wilson (OH-6)
34. Mary Jo Kilroy (OH-15)
35. John Boccieri (OH-16)
36. Kurt Schrader (OR-5)
37. Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-3)
38. Chris Carney (PA-10)
39. John Spratt (SC-5)
40. Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23)
41. Solomon Ortiz (TX-27)
42. Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
43. Tom Perriello (VA-5)
44. Gerry Connolly (VA-11)
45. Alan Mollohan (WV-1)
46. Nick Rahall (WV-3)
47. Steve Kagen (WI-8)
Don't get me wrong -- there are probably a lot more Democrats who voted for the health care bill that can be defeated as well. But here are the ones that voted most flagrantly against their constituents. They must go.
6 comments:
Does the inverse also apply here?
As Governor of the greatest state in the Union, Mitt Romney fought for universal statewide health insurance reform. This reform led to coverage very similar to "the bill that shall not be named." Now he comes out and says "His [Obama's] health-care bill is unhealthy for America . . ." blah blah blah you can fill in the rest I'm sure.
Is he going to run against his own record in 2012?
I actually agree with you on this one, Cape Cod. (BTW, are you going to shorten your name to Cape Cod? Isn't it getting a little tiring typing out that whole long name every time?) RomneyCare in Massachusetts is really not all that different from ObamaCare, and I don't see how Romney can effectively defend his record in Massachusetts while simultaneously blasting ObamaCare. If the Republicans make repealing ObamaCare a central issue in future elections, which I think they should, I think that's going to cause a huge problem for Romney. We cannot effectively make the case against universal gov't health care if Romney is our nominee. That is one reason why I do not support his candidacy for president in 2012. Like you said, he will undercut the Republican message.
BTW, I'm going to overlook your little comment about the "greatest state in the Union." Although we did get the "Tea Party" idea from MA!
Nate Silver gives 14 arguments about why "the will of the electorate" was not breached (as I believe you are trying to claim).
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/03/fourth-branch.html
I am not arguing that it was unethical or tyrannical for the Democrats to pass a health care reform bill. Those are Nate Silver's words, not mine. I am arguing that the Democrats showed reckless disregard for the wishes of the electorate by ramming through a controversial and strongly unpopular bill on a strictly partisan vote. (Actually, the vote was bi-partisan -- in opposition!) And I believe that congressmen who were strong-armed (or bribed) by their party's leadership to vote for such a massive new government entitlement against the strongly expressed wishes of their constituents should pay a price for their failure to represent their constituents' wishes on arguably one of the most important votes in our lifetime. I think that's a very simple and obvious point to make, and nothing in Nate Silver's article disproves that.
Let me briefly respond to some of Silver's points. As I have said elsewhere on the blog, Obama was elected because of strong support from moderates and independents who (foolishly) believed his rhetoric about being a centrist president who would work with both sides of the aisle. Universal health care may have been in his platform, but it was not a prominent campaign issue. The election was not a mandate for this health care reform bill.
Of course, in a 2,500 page bill, there will be certain elements that will be popular (and there are certain elements supported by Republicans as well). Voters are not being schizophrenic or incoherent. They like certain health care reform concepts, but aren't willing to pay a $1 trillion price tag and have their taxes raised and the deficit increased in order to do that. They want reform, but don't trust the government to take over health care. The president has given innumerable speeches and interviews on this topic and made an all-out media blitz, yet public opinion has not moved at all. The electorate is not uninformed; it is just unimpressed. And to say that health care reform is more popular when the alternative is the status quo goes without saying. The status quo is extremely unpopular, and conservatives are certainly not arguing for the status quo. We want reform too.
Let me make two other points in response to the Silver article. First, Silver claims that "history suggests that endeavors of this nature (Medicare, Social Security, Romneycare) generally become popular and are appreciated by the large majority of voters at some point after they become law." It is important to note that Medicare and Social Security were both passed with substantial bi-partisan support. Many members of both parties voted for both bills. By contrast, not a single Republican in either chamber of Congress voted for the health care bill, not even more liberal Republicans like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Mike Castle, and Anh Cao. Medicare and Social Security may not have been overwhelmingly popular at the time they were passed, but they were certainly not deeply unpopular like this bill. We did not see the public uprising and the townhall protests and the marches on Washington and the jammed phone lines that this bill has provoked. And Romneycare was broadly popular when passed on a bi-partisan basis, but it's my understanding it is no longer popular and has not been particularly successful (health care premiums are rising in MA at a higher rate than the country at large). So I don't think any of Nate Silver's examples hold up under scrutiny.
Second, while I agree with Nate Silver that the mere fact that the Democrats passed an unpopular health care bill is not unethical, I think numerous aspects of the process are unethical and even unconstitutional. I think the blatant bribing of members and sweetheart deals in the health care bill are highly unethical. Think Cornhusker Kickback, Louisiana Purchase, Florida Gator-Aid, North Dakota bank deal, etc. These bribes are unethical because they are misusing taxpayer money and because they demonstrate that the bill could not stand on its own merits. I think the way a bill this big and important was forced through Congress was unethical, with strictly limited debate, virtually no amendments, and no opportunity for Republicans to participate. I think the failure of Obama and Democrats to keep their promises about broadcasting negotiations between House & Senate on C-Span and instead doing it behind closed doors is unethical. And worst of all, the Democrats voted to put in place a rule that would allow them to use the "deem-and-pass" method to pass the Senate bill without voting on it. This is not only unethical, it is blatantly unconstitutional, as the Constitution specifies that there must be an up-or-down vote on an idential bill in both houses of Congress for it to become law. For all these reasons and probably more, the process has been blatantly unethical.
Post a Comment