The Just Say No Democrats

The New York Times has an excellent graphic up today profiling the 39 Democrats who voted against healthcare reform in the House of Representatives on Saturday night. The Times notes that 31 of these Democrats represent districts won by John McCain, as if that's a sufficient excuse. But take a closer look at the numbers. Paradoxically, those Democrats voting against healthcare reform represent constituents most in need of health insurance.

Dan Boren of Oklahoma, arguably the most conservative Democrat in Congress, leads the way. Twenty-nine percent of his non-elderly constituents lack health insurance. He's followed by Harry Teague of New Mexico (25 percent uninsured), Waco's Chet Edwards (23 percent), North Carolinians Mike McIntyre (23 percent) and Heath Shuler (21 percent), Blue Dog leader Mike Ross (22 percent) and fellow Southerners Gene Taylor (22 percent), Jim Marshall (22 percent) and John Barrow (21 percent).

These Democrats will talk about fiscal responsibility and cost containment and preserving the free market, but let's get real--their votes had nothing to do with ideological concerns. After all, the legislation was severely watered down to please people like Mike Ross, who voted against the bill anyway. It was all politics, even though 22 of these Democrats won their districts by double-digits. Ross led the way, defeating his practically nonexistent GOP opponent by 72 points! He's hardly an endangered species.

Moreover, eight of the no voters represent districts won by President Obama, such as Larry Kissell in North Carolina's Piedmont (20 percent uninsured), who ran as a champion of the little guy and a supporter of universal healthcare. What's his excuse?

Obama delivered a firm message when he addressed the House Democratic caucus on Saturday night. "Do any of you expect the Republicans not to go after you if you vote against this bill?" Obama asked. Of course not. Republicans will do everything they can to oust conservative Democrats in 2010, just as Democrats defeated moderate Republicans in '06 and '08. Congressional Democrats will rise and fall based on the popularity of their president. I'm not sure why that point isn't obvious by now. If Obama flounders, so will the Blue Dogs and everybody else. Derailing the centerpiece of Obama's agenda hurts everyone in the Democratic Party.

Not all potentially vulnerable Democrats fell into the no category. Fifteen Democrats who represent districts that lean Republican or are pure tossups voted for the bill, including three from Arizona, one from Kansas and two from upstate New York. Newly elected Democrat Bill Owens represents a district held by Republicans for 138 years. If he can vote for the bill, anyone can.

Comments (35)

1. Supposedly, Mr Berman, voting for this health care bill is a political "death sentence"...for ANY Democrat, not just "Blue Dogs".

   Apparently it is "obvious" that most Americans "don't want it" and that as plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face to pass it, Pelosi is committing seppuku to her Speakership, as are the Dem Leadership in the House (and likely the Senate).

   Given the "massive outcry by a majority of the country" at the town halls and Tea Parties....Democrats are suicidal, serving up 2010 and 2012 to the Republicans on a silver platter.

   So naturally, it's a bit odd that ONLY 39 Democrats are "smart enough to see their doom"?!??!???!???

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 11/09/2009 @ 1:15pm

2. The Times notes that 31 of these Democrats represent districts won by John McCain, as if that's a sufficient excuse. But take a closer look at the numbers. Paradoxically, those Democrats voting against healthcare reform represent constituents most in need of health insurance.

   -Ari Berman

   Yep, strange how those Democrats may have been inclined to listen to their constituents regarding the vote on THIS healthcare bill.

   See, that's what is at work here. The people in those districts will probably all agree that healtcare needs to be fixed. Made cheaper. More accessible. Whatever.

   But just because those voters do not approve of THIS particular 2000+ page bill, does not mean they are wrong or that the Democrat representing them is wrong to vote as the majority of his district wishes.

   That is representative democracy. Representatives routinely ignoring or disregarding their constituents is not representation. It's something else.

   Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 1:39pm

3. The Times notes that 31 of these Democrats represent districts won by John McCain, as if that's a sufficient excuse. But take a closer look at the numbers. Paradoxically, those Democrats voting against healthcare reform represent constituents most in need of health insurance.

   -Ari Berman

   Yep, strange how those Democrats may have been inclined to listen to their constituents regarding the vote on THIS healthcare bill.

   See, that's what is at work here. The people in those districts will probably all agree that healtcare needs to be fixed. Made cheaper. More accessible. Whatever.

   But just because those voters do not approve of THIS particular 2000+ page bill, does not mean they are wrong or that the Democrat representing them is wrong to vote as the majority of his district wishes.

   That is representative democracy. Representatives routinely ignoring or disregarding their constituents is not representation. It's something else.

   Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 1:39pm

4. JUST SAY "YES" TO BERNIE SANDERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

   A BILL

   To address the concept of ‘‘Too Big To Fail'' with respect to certain financial entities.

   1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Too Big to Fail, Too 5 Big to Exist Act''. 6 SEC. 2. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON INSTITUTIONS THAT 7 ARE TOO BIG TO FAIL. 8 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not later 9 than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 10 Secretary of the Treasury shall submit to Congress a list

   2

   1 of all commercial banks, investment banks, hedge funds, 2 and insurance companies that the Secretary believes are 3 too big to fail (in this Act referred to as the ‘‘Too Big 4 to Fail List''). 5 SEC. 3. BREAKING-UP TOO BIG TO FAIL INSTITUTIONS. 6 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, begin- 7 ning 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 8 Secretary of the Treasury shall break up entities included 9 on the Too Big To Fail List, so that their failure would 10 no longer cause a catastrophic effect on the United States 11 or global economy without a taxpayer bailout. 12 SEC. 4. DEFINITION. 13 For purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘Too Big to Fail'' 14 means any entity that has grown so large that its failure 15 would have a catastrophic effect on the stability of either 16 the financial system or the United States economy without 17 substantial Government assistance.

   Introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. That's the entire bill.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/09/2009 @ 1:47pm

5. Too Big to Fail, Too 5 Big to Exist Act''

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/09/2009 @ 1:47pm

   I like it, who could oppose this?

   Posted by Extraneous at 11/09/2009 @ 2:06pm

6. I like it, who could oppose this?

   Posted by Extraneous at 11/09/2009 @ 2:06pm

   ah, there lies the rub.....

   anyhoo, sign the petition:

   http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=c53f1aca- 5881-403e-928b-a25980cb4e0c

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/09/2009 @ 2:12pm

7. here, extra:

   http://tinyurl.com/saveamerica

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/09/2009 @ 2:14pm

8. Berman:

   "Obama delivered a firm message when he addressed the House Democratic caucus on Saturday night...."

   Hmmmm. Will Obama ever get around to doing the same to the American people regarding things of importance that he feels "firm" about. Like, maybe, a robust public option....

   Here's a few random good ones today...

   Dave Lindorff at Counterpunch:

   Ordinary, average, struggling Americans might be scratching their heads over the news today, as the Labor Department reports that unemployment is up by four-tenths of a percent for the month to a record 10.2%, fully three-tenths of a percent higher than economists had been forecasting, and stocks do what? Rise by a quarter of a percent!....

   The truth is, we're falling deeper into recession, and apparently, according to the October unemployment figures, at an accelerating rate. And there is no indication that the Obama Administration or the Democratic Congress are planning any significant jobs-creation program. They seem to be happy with this.

   So quick, run out and buy some stock! It's the American thing to do...

   End quote.

   Steve Fleischman at CP:

   In the first Boston tea party, the colonists dumped the British tea into Boston Harbor because of taxation without representation.

   The tea-baggers, today, are making a fracas because they want corporation representation without taxation....

   William Pfaf at Info Clearinghouse

   ...The new army also has political ambitions. It now dominates U.S. foreign relations with a thousand bases worldwide and regional commanders like imperial proconsuls. Both General McChrystal and his superior, General David H. Petraeus, have been mentioned as future presidential candidates. The last general who became American president was Dwight Eisenhower.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/09/2009 @ 2:16pm

9. Too Big to Fail, Too 5 Big to Exist Act''

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/09/2009 @ 1:47pm

   I like it, who could oppose this?

   Posted by Extraneous at 11/09/2009 @ 2:06pm

   Oh, just off the top of my head...I'd say any Democrat who got campaign donations from Goldman Sachs. AIG. Lehman Brothers. Fannie or Freddie...

   I'll be fair and say Republicans too, but I suspect that in the last election the Dems pocketed the lion's share of those contributions.

   Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 2:30pm

10. I mean come on. If Howard Dean can spill the beans and tell us we aren't doing tort reform because the Democrats get too much money from trial lawyers, you think it'll be any different for Democrats concerning Goldman Sachs or Fannie Mae?

    Get real. Sander's bill is quixotic foolishness.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 2:32pm

11. BERMAN: "Republicans will do everything they can to oust conservative Democrats in 2010,....."

    I don't think so! The GOP will prioritize its efforts and money since there are just too many Dems up for Re-Election. Money is always a great constraint and spending it efficiently will be huge!

    Conservative Dems that vote conservatively, will be the next safest group after Liberal Dems from Liberal districts......not rocket science, Ari!

    Posted by Happy at 11/09/2009 @ 2:59pm

12. After the senate vote - with or without a public option - throw the whole thing into BUDGET RECONCILIATION and get the best bill possible WITH the strongest public option that will garner 51 votes in senate and 218 in house.

    Save courting conservative Democrats and Republicans for another day, and quickly move on campaign finance reform so we don't get bogged down by moneyed special interests in future reform initiatives.

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/09/2009 @ 3:14pm

13. Thanks Rep. Dan Boren! It took a vote against the intent to use socialist oppression through our healthcare to raise our esteem of you and it will assure your re- election to at least another term.

    Posted by BigPasture at 11/09/2009 @ 3:21pm

14. Yea, he is a conservative (D.) in a conservative republican state.

    Posted by BigPasture at 11/09/2009 @ 3:22pm

15. I'll be fair and say Republicans too, but I suspect that in the last election the Dems pocketed the lion's share of those contributions.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 2:30pm

    that's because they knew the dems were going to win.

    95% of congress and the white house is as venal as ever.

    and of course, just as dr. paul's bill was gutted, this will never get anywhere.

    but, this quixotic foolishness is what YOU ARE PAYING THEM TO DO.

    if you want to accept your "reward" from the TBTF without at least screaming, enjoy.

    just remember that despite all the liquidity there is no lubrication.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/09/2009 @ 3:28pm

16. just shows how incredibly in he pockets of the for profit health insurance lobby these quislings are, and how unrepresentative of voters as well.

    this is a long, hard, slog of a fight. do not get weary.

    the health insurers are using every dirty trick in the dirty trick playbook of the satano-aynrando anarcho-libertarian dirty, death dealing tricks.

    their exorbitant profits can exist only as a result of the untimely death and unnecessary suffering of millions. they are worse than vultures - vultures serve a vital part of an ecosystem. they are murderous, pain peddling, profiteering, parasites (ooooh! how agnewesque!!!).

    they understand perfectly well that their continued existence in their current form means millions more will suffer needlessly and die prematurely and THAT'S FINE WITH THEM.

    they know perfectly well that to survive in their current form they must LIE AND TWIST TRUTH, WILLINGLY DECEIVE THE GULLIBLE TO THEIR DETRIMENT, CYNICALLY AND KRAKEN-LIKE INFEST OUR POLITY...all so they can rake in their exorbitant profits...

    and not only is this morally deplorable and inexcusable, not only needlessly heartless and cruel, but its economically suicidal and harmful to the competitive edge of our nation's business, and a drag on the real wealth building capacity and prosperity of all.

    our so called health care system is an evil, sadistic joke and the rest of the world laughs cynically at our suicidal stupidity.

    the lies of the satano-aynrando anarch-libertarian right in this country confuse, divide, destroy, kill, and abet evil, and the worst are the health insurance and for profit health care "industry".

    industry!? nothing industrious about those slothful gluttonous mammonists. parasites. leaches.

    thank god i'm NOT dictator of america.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2009 @ 3:32pm

17. you think it'll be any different for Democrats concerning Goldman Sachs or Fannie Mae?

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009

    PEP$!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/09/2009 @ 3:33pm

18. Who cares about their constituents?Denny K gives a shit about his. I heard him on Ed Schultz today and he was bummed. He knows this bill is a sell out to the insurance companies.He asked why the Republicans didn't vote for it since it had gotten so conservative and they are insurance company backers. I will answer it for him. They will vote against Obama on anything and they are voting for themselves not middle class Americans.Big Pissture you have no clue what socialism oppression is.

    Posted by whatozz at 11/09/2009 @ 5:43pm

19. Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2009 @ 3:32pm

    What Mr. Ibbleblibble said...Grandeloquence with style and a bit o' flair...

    As for me, My congressman is on this list. Hopefully, with a final bill he'll grow a spine (and a brain to go on top of it).

    Posted by erazma at 11/09/2009 @ 5:59pm

20. .......despite all the liquidity there is no lubrication.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/09/2009 @ 3:28pm

    Ha! Gold closed at all-time high, over $1,100.....in honor of the 20th Anniversary of the fall of The Wall!

    Posted by Happy at 11/09/2009 @ 6:04pm

21. Not all of us opposed to the House "reform" bill are blue-dog/red-state Democrats. Any bill that forces people to buy insurance from a for-profit corporation, and at rates that will be just like they are now, if not higher, is not right. I'm all for reform. This is not reform. Premiums will not be going down. And as Marcia Angell M.D. points out in her analysis publisheded at the HuffingtonPost, the bill allows insurance companies to charge people in their 50s and 60s MORE than they can charge others. As a result, Angell points out, many older people too young for Medicare will pay the fine rather than buy insurance they cannot afford.

    She proposes Medicare for 55 and older as a start.

    I feel queasy agreeing with the right-wingers, so I prefer to think of it as agreeing with Kucinich. Who is right again.

    Posted by Citizen54 at 11/09/2009 @ 6:10pm

22. So what you are saying is that at worst 71% of the population in the worst district has health care and we should bankrupt the nation to cover the other 29% just because we can?????

    Posted by Go4stjohn at 11/09/2009 @ 6:22pm

23. So what you are saying is that at worst 71% of the population in the worst district has health care and we should bankrupt the nation to cover the other 29% just because we can?????

    Posted by Go4stjohn at 11/09/2009 @ 6:22pm

    Ahhh, more "tyranny of the majority" coming from a Republican. Too bad the Dems don't practice that when they ARE the majority.

    That was sarcasm BTW.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/09/2009 @ 6:50pm

24. Plenty of Republicans peddle their morals to survive politically. Nausiating yes, but not stopping anytime soon.

    The remedy to this nonsense is plain for all to see, publicly funded campaigns. Corporations don't have the right to representation, each individual citizen does. What we have now is open state sanctioned corruption. Our peer nations have publicly funded campaigns, or a version of it, there's no reason why we can't.

    Publicly funded campaigns aren't paid for by the government, they are paid for by the people, who pay for everything anyways. Every penny that corporations spend on political donations comes right out of our pockets in the price of good and services. At least with public funding the will of the people would be done more often, rather than the will of psychopathic corporations willing to do anything to screw Americans to pay billion dollar salaries to people who think of you as cattle.

    Posted by Milhaus at 11/09/2009 @ 7:44pm

25. Ha! Gold closed at all-time high, over $1,100.....in honor of the 20th Anniversary of the fall of The Wall!

    Posted by Happy at 11/09/2009 @ 6:04pm

    http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2009/11/gold-a-six- thousand-year-old-bubble/

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/09/2009 @ 9:08pm

26. The House healthcare bill could take America a step closer to bankruptcy, according to the editorial page editor of The Washington Post.

    "And for progressives in particular -- for those who believe that government has a mission to help the poor and protect the vulnerable -- that prospect should be alarming," writes Fred Hiatt. "If federal debt continues rising on its present path, hastened by a $1 trillion health-care bill, it is the poor and vulnerable who will be most harmed.

    "President Obama has acknowledged this dilemma and offered three broad answers: Health-care reform should not add to the deficit. It should control health-care costs," Hiatt continues. "And, once reform is passed, the government will get serious about deficit reduction.

    "Unfortunately, the House bill fails his first test. True, the Congressional Budget Office has said that the bill is paid for. But the CBO is not allowed to count $250 billion in projected Medicare payments to doctors over the next 10 years, because the House -- after first acknowledging that cost in its reform bill -- decreed it had nothing to do with reform because lawmakers didn't want to pay for it."

    Read the full story at The Washington Post

    Posted by BigPasture at 11/09/2009 @ 9:31pm

27. bigpasture, fred hiatt's numbers are WAY off and consider projections for obama's ENTIRE BUDGET, and not the healthcare budget. see my other post on another thread for the rundown....

    Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 12:30am

28. Big Pissture go post with Ann and Bill and the rest of the blowhards. The Post doesn't want us to know we are already bankrupt.Why do you think the banks we bailed out are sitting on their money? Gold, the inflation hedge is at an all time high when we have a 0% prime interest rate. For some reason health care is a doomsdayer for you. Get your head out bof the sand Ostrich man.

    Posted by whatozz at 11/10/2009 @ 06:15am

29. So, according to Ari, no matter how bad the legislation, vote "yea" in order not to destroy the "centerpiece" of the Obama administration.

    If no-bill on health-care were to hurt President Obama, would that be worse than hurting the American people by forcing them into a huge subsidization of the health insurance industry for many years to come?

    Disloyalty to a very poor president, a proven reneger on almost every significant national and international promise, is nothing to be ashamed of. Voting for a mandate in favor of the insurance industry is, on the other hand, a great disgrace, Ari.

    Posted by goedel at 11/10/2009 @ 07:35am

30. @mask

    Some good points, and certainly the Dems have thrown away their future majorities, but what difference which corporate shill is elected? And obviously all the Dems know this but shilling is shilling.

    Posted by kparcell at 11/10/2009 @ 10:15am

31. Breaking Up is Hard to do" Yeah, I've heard that song before!

    John D. Froelich

    Posted by balataf at 11/10/2009 @ 10:52am

32. The Times notes that 31 of these Democrats represent districts won by John McCain, as if that's a sufficient excuse.

    ******

    Ari, is it your belief that the purpose of the MSM is to make excuses for Democrats?

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/10/2009 @ 1:52pm

33. The problem is that there is no alternative.What is the next excuse to cut parts out of the bill? Let's face the fact that the Democrats worked their asses off to create,diminish,and stave off elimination of their own bill.Apparently most of them are so used to being pushed around by the conservatives that a look is enough for them to wilt.Have a conscience,look at and see the stories of the people.Do the people that are getting double digit premium increases from their insurers just make it up.There are no "competitors" on the horizon.What is right with the insurance company fleecing of America?Someone tell me what or who is increasing the expense of the money handlers?Now we come top a bill the conservatives are pushing so no one can vote for it.Hip,Hip,Hooray we all are getting screwed some more.Maybe the TARP funds should have been tied to health care. Would Wall Street be betting as much as it has been? How are health stocks doing?

    Posted by whatozz at 11/10/2009 @ 4:00pm

34. I could not disagree more strongly on your post and this part:

    "Newly elected Democrat Bill Owens represents a district held by Republicans for 138 years. If he can vote for the bill, anyone can."

    Bill Owens ducked, dodged and deceived about the health care reform bill as it relates to any public option from day one.

    You must stop using him as a prototype of a "moderate or mainstream Dem" who can win in a very Red and staunch GOP district ... that was not the case here.

    He won with $2 million, slick Ads and guidance from the DNC/DCCC and White House... and, the GOP exploding and imploding between two factions (Scozzafava and Hoffman) who tore each other apart – Owens slipped in under the radar. I know I competed against him for the nomination....

    BTW: he was not even a registered DEM until after the election ... You are making a huge mole hill out of this tiny mole.

    Dan Francis (Watertown, NY)

    Posted by Eyepublius at 11/10/2009 @ 6:20pm

35. BTW: HAPPY 234 BIRTHDAY, USMC...

    Nov 10, 1775 - today.

    Dan Francis, 1st Lt. USMC (Ret.)

    Posted by Eyepublius at 11/10/2009 @ 6:22pm