How Many Democrats Will Join The Republicans In A Symbolic Attempt To Repeal Health Care Reform?

[Joanne98]

A few days ago we posed the simple question about how many Democrats would cross into darkness and vote to repeal healthcare reform. Again, when the Affordable Health Care for America Act first passed 220-215 on November 7, 2009, there were 39 Democrats who joined all but one Republican in opposing it. Almost all of those conservative Democrats were swept out of office in November. This time Boehner won't be able to count on anti-family whores like John Adler (NJ), Allen Boyd (FL), Bobby Bright (AL), Travis Childers (MS), Susanne Kosmas (FL), Frank Kratovil (MD), Jim Marshall (GA), Mike McMahon (NY), Charlie Melancon (LA), Walt Minnick (ID), Glenn Nye (VA), etc. The only conservative anti-healthcare slimeballs who managed to escape voters' wrath were Jason Altmire (Blue Dog-PA), Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK), John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA), Ben Chandler (Blue Dog-KY),Tim Holden (Blue Dog-PA), Larry Kissell (unofficial Blue Dog-NC), Dan Lipinski (unofficial Blue Dog-IL), Stephen Lynch (MA), Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT), Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog-NC), Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN), Mike Ross (Blue Dog-AR) and Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC).

So far McIntyre and Boren, inveterate aisle-crossers when they have a chance to screw working families, have announced they're standing with Boehner and Cantor on this one again. Altmire, Kissell, Lipinski, Lynch, Matheson, Peterson and Shuler have already stated that they won't vote to repeal the law. Wednesday Altmire said that Republicans just "want to make a political statement by saying, ‘We repealed the entire health-care bill'. I’m not going to participate in any kind of game like that.”

Altmire said that some of the most “widely popular” parts of reform are the protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions, limitations on the costs of preventive care for Medicare beneficiaries and the closing of the so-called “doughnut hole” for those on the Medicare Part D prescription drug program.

A sweeping repeal would kill all those provisions and hurt constituents in his district, Altmire said. “There’s no reason why (Republicans) have to structure the repeal this way,” he said.

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-many-democrats-will-join.html

[no_hypocrisy]

1. It depends upon what they're offered in exchange.

[OHdem10]

4. How about a solemn promise that the GOP will not put up a

strong challenger in the next election and will
not put up ads against them.

The GOP may have a hard time keeping such a
promise this election because of TeaBagger wing.

[mdmc]

2. I think that all house D should vote for repeal

so that no DLC'er gets credit for being brave and voting repeal.
Let it die in the Senate - it has no chance and is just theatre.

[RBInMaine]

3. Not all moderate D's are against the health law. Your purist pipe dream means a non-viable party.

If you want an ideologically pure party, get used to being powerless in the permanent minority. This is on balance a moderate nation, whether you (or the TeaRadicals) like it or not.

[mdmc]

5. With all due respect

this isn't about health care - the bill cannot be revoked as long as the Dems in the senate can block it.
If the Dems in the senate can't count on the DLC, then the bill can be killed. As long as the senate is certain of blockage, why not have all house dems vote for repeal, as a symbol of how pointless the house vote is.

This repeal bill is just theatre - a way for the GOP to "show" that they "tried" to repeal the healthcare bill. By the Dems voting lockstep with the GOP in this silliness, we rob the GOP of their "victory in defeat" style of governing.

In other words, the GOP will claim victory for having the vote. The vote should be as moot as the repeal bill actually is.

[ClassWarrior]

8. Thank you.

Why do so many people here engage in clueless, two-dimensional thinking?

NGU.

[RBInMaine]

9. I agree it is theater and can't pass, and it WON'T. What you want is needless. And I still take

exception to your obvious attitude about "DLC'ers." Remember that Bill Clinton, who won two elections and now has a 62% popularity rating for his presidency and would have been elected a third term if he could have run, was a "DLCer." McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis got the living shit kicked out of them because they were too far to the left for the whole of the nation. This is a big, regional nation which on balance is CENTRIST, and no political party that is on the extremes can be a majority party. This is why I LOVE that the R's have gone TeaRadical. The moderate middle will not stay with them.

[ClassWarrior]

11. Mondale and Dukakis are raging leftists??!

:rofl:

Symbolic victories are "needless??

:crazy:

You post "Your purist pipe dream means a non-viable party," and then you have the nerve to tell another poster that s/he has an "attitude?"

:eyes:

There is so much dead-headed wrong in this post, it's ridiculous.

NGU.

[RBInMaine]

13. You attack their theater by arguing against, voting against it, and then killing it in the Senate.

[RBInMaine]

14. I never said they were "raging leftists," I said they were too liberal for the whole nation and got

pounded (and also waged weak campaigns - but still would have gotten pounded). You tell me. Clinton the moderate wins twice. McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis got bludgened. Why? Even Obama only got 53% of the vote with Bush at a 30% approval. Why? What does this tell you about the nation?

[ClassWarrior]

16. Clinton has charisma. The so-called "theatre" that you deplore. The other three don't.

Electability has more to do with presentation than content. Lakoff again:

1. What does a political candidate need to do to win voter confidence?
2. What are the traps that cause political candidates to lose credibility among the populace?

The short answer to the first question is that voters must identify with the candidate. Four things come together for this to happen. These things are values, connection, authenticity, and trust. The candidate must talk about values when discussing issues to consciously articulate the concerns that lead to political positions. The candidate must communicate values effectively to connect with people. This requires the speaker to always appear authentic so that they seem to believe what they say. A candidate who talks about values and connects with people in an authentic way will build trust, which encourages voters to select them over other candidates.

The second question can only be answered by understanding a few discoveries from the cognitive sciences about the human mind. It is not simply a matter of the policies a candidate supports. The merits of one policy over another will not win the hearts and minds of supporters who are looking for a leader that resonates with their hopes and protects them from their fears. No, what people look for in a leader is a moral connection...

http://www.cognitivepolicyworks.com/resource-center/thinking-points/chapter-1-winning-and-losing/

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

17. There are 12 traps. Note #7...

Twelve Traps to Avoid

1. The Issue Trap
2. The Poll Trap
3. The Laundry List Trap
4. The Rationalism Trap
5. The No-Framing-Necessary Trap
6. The Policies-Are-Values Trap
7. The Centrist Trap
8. The "Misunderestimating" Trap
9. The Reactive Trap
10. The Spin Trap
11. The Policyspeak Trap
12. The Blame Game Trap

For a full exposition of these, see http://www.cognitivepolicyworks.com/resource-center/thinking-points/chapter-1-winning-and-losing.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

18. .

[ClassWarrior]

7. One more time for the slow. "Centrism" and being "moderate" are MYTHS.

No Center, No Centrists
by Prof. George Lakoff

"Centrism" is the creation of an inaccurate self-serving metaphor, and it is time to bury it.

There is no left to right linear spectrum in the American political life. There are two systems of values and modes of thought -- call them progressive and conservative (or nurturant and strict, as I have). There are total progressives, who use a progressive mode of thought on all issues. And total conservatives. And there are lots of folks who are what I've called "biconceptuals": progressive on certain issue areas and conservative on others. But they don't form a linear scale. They are all over the place: progressive on domestic policy, conservative on foreign policy; conservative on economic policy, progressive on foreign policy and social issues; conservative on religion, but progressive on social issues and foreign policy; and on and on. No linear scale. No single set of values defining a "center." Indeed many of such folks are not moderate in their views; they can be quite passionate about both their progressive and conservative views.

Barack Obama has it right: Get rid of the very idea of the right and the left and the center. American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas -- the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit. Progressives care about people and the earth, and act with responsibility and strength on that care.

The progressive view of government is simple. Progressive government has two aspects: protection and empowerment. Protection is far more than the military, police, and fire departments. It includes consumer protection, worker protection, environmental protection, public health, food and drug safety; social security, and other safety nets. It also includes protection from the government itself, and hence a balance of powers, openness, fundamental rights, and so on.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

NGU.

[RBInMaine]

12. For the slower, MOST Americans are not on the ideological wings. I know full well what Lakoff is

saying; that people have both conservative and liberal tendancies, and what he tries to do is teach liberals how to frame their messaging to appeal to the liberal side. But in practicality and matters of policy and attitude, a plurality of Americans take middle of the road positions and resist ideological extremes. They don't want too much government, but they also want effective and adequate government. Lakoff is talking about message framing. I am talking about governing and the electoral political reality. McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis got pounded because they were simply too liberal for the majority of the nation, like it or not. Bill Clinton won twice and would have a third time because he was more moderate, like it or not.

[ClassWarrior]

15. Obviously you don't know Lakoff. "Middle of the road positions" aren't physiologically possible...

...the way the brain is constructed. This is a distinguished professor who has studied this for decades:

Reason is shaped by the sensory-motor system of the brain and the body.

http://mindhacks.com/2008/08/12/george-lakoff-and-the-linguistics-wars/

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

19. .

[Nancy Waterman]

6. According to Rachel, the answer is three

Her conclusion last night: the moronic GOP have managed to unite the Dems.

[rasputin1952]

10. That's exacxtly what i was going to post...

There will be 3, if any...even the Blue Dogs are on board.

The R's will have to explain why they want "Grandma to die".