The Democratic No Votes

That’s what “standing on principle” means, precisely.You stick with what you believe in through and through.Imagine if Martin Luther King Jr. didn’t “stand on principle” but compromised himself?Imagine if Susan B. Anthony didn’t “stand on principle but caved?The very definition of “standing on principle” is that you are consistent, steady, reliable and others know where you stand and you are uncompromising.The opposite — a “sellout” —- is when you stand for something then compromise your principles when it’s politically unfavorable. You’d be the first to criticize a politician who did that — who switched at the last minute.The inconsistency does not build trust and we are quick to label that bunch ‘sell outs’with compromised values and political motives.Why does Bob Cesca hate politicians who stand on principle and want principled politicians to sell out when it’s politically convenient?

Many of those in the list would vote for last night’s bill if their vote was needed for it to pass.This was carefully orchestrated so that Democrats in districts that they could lose by voting for this legislation did not have to vote for it. I’m so proud of Nancy Pelosi and the leadership. They passed extremely controversial legislation and worked magic with the membership.Chet Edwards is on that list. He is a really good Democrat who represents a district that went 70% for George Bush. Edwards was a supporter of Obama in Texas. Pelosi wanted him to be Obama’s VP and he was on the short list.We lose Chet Edwards we will get another Pete Sessions in that district. And we would lose a good representative.I would bet big money that Pelosi did not want Edwards’ vote unless she had to have it because she wants him reelected next year.I don’t want to keep people like Lieberman, but I don’t want to kick out everyone I disagree with.We should not condemn legislators on one vote. We would be foolish to go the DINO route. That is the lame logic of the teabaggers.Some Democrats in office are conservative because they are elected by conservatives.We are supposed to be inclusive. That means we have room for moderates and conservatives in our party. And if a district votes someone in — so be it.I’m a liberal and want to see more liberal legislation. But I won’t get any legislation I like if we act like the idiots in the GOP and demand everyone follow a very narrow ideology. We will end up with a very tiny party with no power to do anything.We aren’t a nation of just liberals. We shouldn’t expect all of our reps to be liberals.

I don’t agree with all of Chet Edwards’ votes but I do like that the NRA gives him an “F” and NARAL gives him a “100″ pro-choice rating. The AFL-CIO rates him as pro-union.

Terri, so now Dennis Kucinich has been elevated from politician to civil rights leader? I don’t care if he votes No, as long as he’s not the decisive No. Rest assured, he sought out Pelosi’s permission to vote No. If his vote was needed to pass, I’m positive he would’ve voted Yes, same with many of the conservative Dems.I think 219 is the number they were shooting for. They didn’t want to pass by just 1, so they made it 3, and lucky them, one republican voted with them so they passed by 5. At least that’s my theory.

sigh — you’re probably right eljefejeff.

@Terri: The Heroes you mentioned didn’t get everything they wanted or asked for as we are still fighting for the rights of women and minorities. What they gave us was a damned good start.I don’t believe Kucinich’s vote was about principle. It was the detrimental “All or Nothing” attitude that plagues both wings of the party. This is Washington and there is no room for that and the American people can’t afford it.And if you have such respect for Kucinich for standing by his “principles” then you must have a ton of respect for the Republicans who voted against it and also the tea baggers who protest against it.

@ TerriHere’s what I don’t get . . .Why would a single payer or nothing “progressive” stand on a principal that cannot win at this time? Do they really not give a shit about the victims of our current health care disaster?Also, do they not realize that the PO is actually a trojan horse that gives a shot at single payer in the future. Or, again, do they not care?

I was a bit surprised to see Betsy Markey’s name on that list. She won Marilyn “Manson” Musgrave’s seat last year. In fact, to this day, Musgrave has yet to concede or congratulate her on the win.Apparently she was concerned that the bill didn’t do enough to control costs.Well, good for her! She was principled and stood by those principles and tried to kill the bill!I’m gonna stand by my principles and not support her in 2010. Time to rid the party of these malcontents.

I would have voted no because I think that it is unconstitutional to deny women a legal right to a abortion in insurance plans that they themselves pay for.It is not okay to throw away the rights of 50% of the population just to get health care.

On the topic of shameless: David Gregory on MTP this morning.Aside from making the passing of a Democratic bill into a Republican win (in typical WTF fashion), he’s continuing to allow Repubs to spread outright lies about what’s going on. I just realized, though, that it lies in how he directs debate. If the former Repub Governor (whose name is escaping me) says “the CBO says this would drive up costs”, Gregory should say “Gov. Rendell, your response”. Instead, though, he redirects onto a different topic – letting it all go right on by. The first word of each debate is always the final word, and whoever frames the question is winner by default.This is why Rachel Maddow is so amazing when she’s on – she ignores Gregory, interrupts liars, and presents fact.

Ironically, Susan B Anthony and MLK both were considered sellouts by the more extreme elements of their side. Anthony was criticized for trying to expand the suffrage tent with more moderate groups. And MLK was criticized by leaders such as Malcolm X for being too pacifistic.

Ceu, thanks for the info. But, in the end, the result is the same or worse. I would have not voted for the bill.

Just a thought, and it may have been thought already, but why didn’t anyone offer up an amendment specifically banning any federal dollars for the treatment of erectile dysfunction?Quid pro quo, fellas, quid pro quo…

Actually having an abortion, eljefejeff, isn’t the point, tho. Most people never use the benefit & most haven’t ever looked into their insurance policies to see if it’s covered. What the amendment does is say that if your policy covers abortion, no federal money will be given to you to help cover the costs of paying for that policy.

Vera, that sucks, I know my wife was prescribed the pill as a teenager for a medical reason and it’s been covered for her ever since.Viagra and the pill are both there largely so men and women can enjoy sex. You wouldn’t need either of those pills if you weren’t planning to have sex, unless you have, as in the case of my wife, irregular periods or another medical problem.Nano, of course guys should use a condom, for many reasons, but ultimately the fetus is carried by the woman, and she is the only one with the power to prevent a pregnancy, and it should definitely be covered by insurance.I’m assuming there is language in this bill that will allow for abortions to be covered when the mother’s health is threatened, and hopefully also for cases of rape and incest.

That’s something to look into, el jefe. I’ll be looking at the Stupak Amendment later. I just don’t remember it being mentioned at all that provisions would be made. My understanding of the pro-lifers though is that there is never any reason to allow abortion. They are an all or nothing bunch.

Ok just read it. It does allow funding in the case of incest, rape, or is in danger of death as the result of the pregnancy.

Stranahan:>>>>You can pretend it will get better and that this is a good start but that ignores the facts. For months, progressives have been saying we need a ROBUST public option for a reason. Most of you seem to have forgotten why.Yeah, so KILL THE BILL!Ridiculous.

Exactly Bob…..do these hardline liberals forget that health care reform failed in 1993 and it took 16 years to try again? If we vote this down because it isn’t single payer, are we supposed to wait until 2023 to try again?

lejefefeff, I don’t know what anti-woman means.I will say that you are willing to argue that a woman’s right over her own body should be subject to your own moral rules of conduct.That is reprehensible.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/House-Passes-Weak-Public-O-by-Rob-Kall-091108-429.htmlLee — Although hard to believe, apparently Bob and his fellow Cescans are proud and pleased with sell out politicians who give us sell out legislation:”Giving a $1.2 trillion gift to the health insurance industry, betraying women’s rights, the House gave the White House what it wanted. The question is, will the Democrats wake up with a hangover in 2010, facing a public enraged that the bill has strengthened the very industry that is causing economic pain to families, death to tens of thousands annually and damage to our nation’s industries’ ability to compete.The house passed a health care reform bill with a price tag of about $1.2 trillion dollars, with abortion gutted out of it by Bluedog Dems.This is a betrayal of women– the vast majority of constituents who elected the Democrats who passed this bill. It is a betrayal of those who expected real change, since it is a weakened public option– weakened at the behest of the White House. One low odds hope would be that Obama will issue a signing statement, in some way neutralizing the anti-abortion part of the bill. Though highly unlikely, it would be interesting to see if the president would use the power of the signing statement for a liberal cause, and how Congress would respond to it, compared to the thousands of signing statements Bush signed, with no response from Congress.”

Lee and Terri — No matter what I say or write, you’ll never be satisfied. But if I have to spell it out for you, I’m with Anthony Weiner. I want single-payer, and I always have, but I understand the political realities that the Democrats and the White House are facing. And I understand that this healthcare reform legislation is the best, most practicable way to eventually achieving that end.>>>I think the robust public option was worth fighting for – you didn’t.Oh fuck off. Again, I’ve written extensively in support of a robust public option and called my representatives and even the White House in support of it. I don’t know what else you expected me to do. One thing I won’t do is to ignore history and shit all over the bill when precedent shows that it’s a means to an end, while it also will help millions of people, including me and my family with our pre-existing conditions.You’re both acting like crackpots, and I don’t know what else to say to you.

Terri Quotes:

“One low odds hope would be that Obama will issue a signing statement, in some way neutralizing the anti-abortion part of the bill.”

Yeah. Because that’s how Obama rolls. He totally signed DADT out of existence. He totally signed GITMO into closure. He totally signed Medicare into something everyone is now eligible for. ‘Cause he just ignores Congress.Listen. We have what we have. You can either work to make it better or you can explode in (impotent) rage at Bob, the President, the community here, what the fuck ever you want to explode all over. Just don’t be surprised if we choose not to be hit by the shrapnel.

Stranahan:>>>>>>Bob. All I was saying is that I had a standard; a point at beyond which I thought compromise was bad.Just because you didn’t read it, doesn’t make it untrue, Lee. I had a “standard” (and still do). The Finance Committee bill was an atrocity and I said so — LOUDLY. That was my “line in the sand.” In very brief detail: mandates without a public option would be the worst thing for both the people and the Democratic Party. I was insanely angry about it, and made my opinion known. The fact that you didn’t pick that up from my blog posts and Huffington columns isn’t my problem.If a post falls in the blog and Lee doesn’t read it, does it make a sound?All three of these columns make the point about the public option and mandates.THE MOST NIGHTMARISH HEALTHCARE REFORM BILL EVERhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/the-most-nightmarish-heal_b_281214.htmlHEALTHCARE REFORM NAMED AFTER TED KENNEDY MUST NOT SUCKhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/healthcare-reform-named-a_b_269690.htmlTHE PUBLIC OPTION IS POPULAR, MORAL AND INEXPENSIVE, AND THEREFORE IT MUST DIEhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/the-public-option-is-popu_b_275845.html

LeeIf your eyes are bothering you, have someone read Bob’s HuffPo pieces. But please, stop the weird horse shit. You could not make your last comment if you had knowledge of the content of Bob’s posts.

He’s already supported a weak public option and you wouldn’t gather that from his writing.I’ve noticed that Bob has had two chances to give a clear answer. Will he support a bill with a trigger? Will he support an opt out?This sort of non-answering is almost expected from a politician but Bob is a pundit. Why can’t he just say where his line in the sand is?He feels liking killing the bill if there’s a trigger or opt-out, he can say that. And if he doesn’t feel that way, he can say that, too.

Lee:>>>>>I’ve noticed that Bob has had two chances to give a clear answer. Will he support a bill with a trigger? Will he support an opt out?This is why I wrote that you’re acting like a crackpot. What the fuck difference does it make to you? If you had actually read any of my posts, you’d know where I stand. But you clearly haven’t.So for Lee…I’m fine with an opt out but not a trigger. (So far, no state has opted out of Medicaid.) I’m fine with “level playing field” public option, provided the public option is made more robust over time.I preferred a Medicare Plus-5 public option as a path to single-payer. But that ain’t gonna happen. So it’s going to have to be expanded as we go. I can accept that.HAPPY?!Now go forth and Twitter about how I’m a sell-out and compromiser. I don’t give a flying fuck.

I am drawing the line below . . .____________________________________________________Except for this final comment, I will not post below this line.This conversation is giving me a major headache. And I blame you Lee for all the drinks I am about to have.Adios for now, amigo.

“Now go forth and Twitter about how I’m a sell-out and compromiser. I don’t give a flying fuck.”Bob, please let this mean you’ve finally had enough of trying to explain yourself to this guy and his little troll cheerleader.

Anyone else getting a very “Groundhog Day” vibe from all this mess?Phil?Ned?

eljefejeff, you said that women that behave irresponsibly should not be able to take advantage of the risk sharing afforded to them by insurance.So, we should give up our rights to insurance that we pay for if our behavior is “irresponsible” in your book.Not to mention that abortions are legal procedures.I cannot think of one other legal medical procedure that has been determined by the US Congress to be not covered by insurance.

Your writing is familiar, but I have no memory. I had to ask….too many brain cells got ‘lost’ along the line.

I don’t know why that was so hard.Bob won’t support the trigger. I have no reason to call him a compromiser or sell out or anything unless they compromisers THAT position.So, since we’ve established that Bob won’t just support ANY bill, you can stop attacking me for having a different line in the sand.Here’s a rough map of positions; I was willing to compromise on 1 and 2. Bob is willing to compromise on 1-5.1) Single Payer2) Obama campaign – no individual mandate3) Individual mandate with robust PO4) Individual mandate with weak PO5) Opt Out6) Trigger7) No POThat doesn’t make me right and Bob wrong. Or vice versa. But don’t attack me for being consistent with MY beliefs. I said – over and over – I wouldn’t support a bill without a robust public option. And I meant it.I don’t think Bob ever said that – so he’s being consistent.Again – why is this so hard?

Also CEU – for what it’s worth, you have the same position as The White House, I think. I just wish they’d be as clear as you.

I think Stranahan summarized it pretty well at 5:50. But the thing is, Reid seems to have taken reconciliation off the table, and Lieberman seems have taken numbers 1-6 off the table (Stranahan’s list). One of them has to break. What if Reid breaks? No reform? No progress? None?No. No lines in the sand. We don’t turn our backs on progress — no matter how limited. We did the best we could.Regardless of the outcome, we dust ourselves off, and we work our asses off to replace ConservaDems and Republicans in the next election and the election after that and the election after that.

I can live with an opt out but not a trigger.

Lee:>>>>But you just said you’d kill the bill if there’s a trigger, Bob.Back off, man. I didn’t say that. I outlined what I’m against. I’m not willing to make any stupid KILL THE BILL pledges for the sake of your satisfaction, Lee. I reserve the right to evaluate empirical reality as it happens.

Lee:>>>>So – you’re open to a trigger under some circumstances?If there’s no mandate, possibly.>>>> What do you stand for?Read the blog, Lee.

>>>>If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.I’m sorry, but I gotta call bullshit on this one. I’ll take a pragmatist over an idealist any day (hence my vote for Barak Obama over Dennis Kucinich).

Eljefejeff, please chill.I assumed in your statements that you actually understood the bill and its relationship to abortion. The bill requires that people have health insurance – a mandate. Then it subsidizes some of that cost for people who cannot afford it. Those people who are forced to buy health insurance and cannot fully pay for it on their own cannot get coverage for abortions (or contraception if I am reading things right).So, we are forcing women to buy insurance (a risk sharing mechanism) that affords them less coverage than women that can afford insurance through their employer or individually even though THESE WOMEN ARE ALSO CONTRIBUTING SOME OF THEIR OWN MONEY.Again, please give me any other example of Congress telling private insurers what their coverage must be for their own customers.Are they telling the companies that they cannot cover HIV treatments for drug addicts? Reconstructive surgery for people who crash while driving drunk? Sex addiction counseling for actors? No, none of that.Why is Congress telling poor women that they cannot purchase the same insurance afforded to wealthy women even if they use some of their own money a good place to start force people to “take responsibility for themselves”.Excuse me for concluding that your support of this suggests that you are imposing your moral judgments into your remarks. However, I cannot think of any other explanation.Care to inform me?

How’s Kucinich being irresponsible if this statement is a factual interpretation of the bill?

In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies — a bailout under a blue cross.

Did anyone read the link Terri gave? I got email form Kucinich explaining why he voted no. I’ll trust him at his word rather than the speculators here who imply that he cut a deal with Pelosi in order to get his amendment inserted in committee. TO suggest otherwise goes against everything we know about Kucinich.At any rate, it’s time to head over to thomas.gov and read the actual bill. You know, homework, to see if Kucinich is blowing smoke or not.

ec, unfortunately, sex and drug addiction are not nearly as controversial as abortion. There are millions of Americans who care about one issue only, and that is abortion. This amendment is to appease them. It doesn’t anyway, nothing but an outright ban would satisfy them. Obviously somewhere between conception and birth, life begins. None of us is smart enough to know exactly when. I feel it’s as soon as the fetus can survive outside the womb without the mother, others think it’s much earlier, some think it’s later, and there’s simply no right answer.”Excuse me for concluding that your support of this suggests that you are imposing your moral judgments into your remarks. However, I cannot think of any other explanation.”Simple….my explanation is that I see this amendment as a fair compromise. No one is outlawing abortion. But I don’t see why it needs to be any more accessible, if anything, it should be less. Abortion is really disgusting. When my wife had a miscarriage, we were crushed, and all I could think was “Some people do this on purpose?” Hey that’s their business but if someone proposes that no taxes goes to fund it, I don’t have a problem with that. As far as the mandate goes, they’ll have access to cheap birth control through their insurance, which women tell me is far less traumatic than getting an abortion.Good day.