Kucinich is free to say what he wants - to burn the bill in public but . . .

[grantcart]

Dennis Kucinich is free to make all the demonstrations he wants; go on TV and denounce the bill take a match and light it on fire.


But when a core Democratic bill that is supported by the caucus comes to a close vote then you bitch like hell and vote for the bill.


Especially if your from a deep blue district.


Kucinich isn't from a red district. He carried his district by 18 points - Obama carried it by 20.


There are Democrats who come from conservative districts that wanted to continue to stay in the House but voted with the caucus.


A number of them will probably lose their seat because of it.


Down the line Dennis Kucinich will introduce a bill that all of DU will love, it will be controversial and when it comes to a final


vote those Democrats will remember Dennis Kucinich's "principled stand" and walk away from the bill.


The only thing that Dennis Kucinich achieved yesterday is to reduce his ability to work within the caucus on progressive issues.

[Aramchek]

1. he failed us. pettiness is the last thing we need in our Reps.

[cyclezealot]

6. His 'pettiness' is justified.

Does not matter what the American people want. It's a matter of what lobbyists will let us have.. Kucinich's bill was not approved by those forces this year- nor will it be anytime soon. Not until the American people discover this bill will not save them on premiums.. And insurance moguls are still mostly in charge.. This is not the burning issue that will cause him the most grief for his usual principled stands. What issue that will cause him the most grief will be his vote and speech over the "Goldstone Inquiry." Someone unprincipled never screws with AIPAC, because they are vindictive as all hell. Expect they will do their best to find a primary opponent and likely they have at least a million to spare..

[Aramchek]

7. just as justified as the Repuke opposition. a Nay is a Nay

[HughMoran]

9. zealot

yup. :hi:

[cyclezealot]

13. Hell. The Stupak rider alone is virtually enought cause to vote against it.

[DemBones DemBones]

64. Remember his "pettiness" against the Patriot Act and the Iraq war?

It's a good thing he's in a minority in the Democratic Party. :sarcasm:

Kucinich actually believes in doing what's good for the people, not the corporations and the warmongers. We see a man with principles so rarely. . . and now DU is kicking him for being a man of principle.

[kath]

69. +1

Thanks, DemBones.

[Go2Peace]

38. UNREC for another nast DK is the antichrist spam

DU isn't going for it. They aren't with you. You must feel defeated..

[grantcart]

102. not the antichrist just an irrelevent gadfly

[adamuu]

71. Unreliable partner. n/t

[truedelphi]

76. Yep the 99% majority of Reps (Republicans)

That call themselves Democrats, really should not have to be taken to task by a guy like Kucinich.

Why the hell hasn't he sold out yet? It is not proper, that this one lone character would hold out again and again on priciple, when there is so much money and policital capital to be made from selling out.

What Kucinich keeps doing is not American I tell ya! The guy should be burned at the stake for forgetting that all who enter the halls of Congress MUST WORSHIP the God of Mannon. (New slogan for the dollar bill ("One God, Lying under the Dollar that we trust in, so much that we shaft everything else, including what used to be sacred.")

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Well, he was considering Ron Paul as his running mate.

Kind of surprised he hasn't questioned Obama's birth certificate yet.

[Egnever]

3. You are knocking them out of the park today grant

Thnx for yet another reasoned post.

[Go2Peace]

39. Why not give up this "Crusade" to try and paste a nasty frame on DK. It aint working.

Check all the greatest posts... Most DUers can think in more than black and white. You guys sound like a bunch of whiney teens.

[galloglas]

50. Rajah that !

"You guys sound like a bunch of whiney teens.

Indeed. Not the folks one wishes around if defending the Alamo, no?

[The Magistrate]

4. Exactly, Sir: He Is Free To act As He Wishes, Others Are Free To Criticize Him for His Actions

He should have voted 'yea', and by voting 'nay' he ranged himself alongside Boehner and Cantor and Army's mob of 'tea-baggers', just like the lowest 'blue dog'....

[bigtree]

16. The effect of his no vote was nil and I'm sure he was aware of that

He had the luxury this time to vote his conscience, which to be fair, wasn't at all in line with the outright obstruction and inanity of the positions of the objectors you describe. I'd be inclined to agree with you if his vote was the instrumental one, but it wasn't. Others in politics have been allowed to vote their own conscience in a similar count and I think Kucinich has almost always voted his.

[HughMoran]

18. Will you say the same when Lieberman votes against the Senate version?

Or does "do no wrong" Saint Dennis get special dispensation?

Cheerleading Dennis is no better than "cheerleading" Obama. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy.

[galloglas]

53. Except that

Obama signs bills into law, or not, when presented to him. Dennis Kucinich does not.

[HughMoran]

72. Lame justification #1

C'mon, so who signs a bill now justifies who I can call a hypocrite?

[galloglas]

81. For clarification

Seemed obvious enough to me, but here goes.

You wrote, "Cheerleading Dennis is no better than "cheerleading" Obama. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy., "


1) You may malign anyone you wish by calling them a hypocrite, short of slander or libel. Those who judge your pronouncements will, in the end, determine whether you are simply taking cheap shots, or being partisan.

The question of "who signs a bill" has nothing to do with hypocrisy. It has to do with the simple fact that a)Obama can sign a law into effect, or veto it, while b) Kucinich can only vote upon such a bill which, if passed and presented to the President (Obama), may or may not be signed.

The "cheerleading" being spoken of has to do only with their relative positions on what is, and is not, good public law.

[HughMoran]

86. I see your point

...but I still don't think that this "justification" is a good excuse for the grandstanding that Kucinich (& is famous for) did last night.

There's no excuse for this behavior on such a critical bill. It's the most important bill of my adult lifetime - I can't ever forgive him for this. He did it for political reasons and that's just wrong in my opinion.

[bigtree]

54. Lieberman isn't anything like Dennis Kucinich

If his vote is consequential to the outcome, he should be held responsible. It's even closer in the Senate, and dicier. No credible comparison to be made from your subjective premise.

[HughMoran]

73. Lame justification #2

Who said they were the same? What I want to know is - why does Dennis get special "excuse making" when he votes against Dems - especially on the most important bill in many, many years? The same people who worship Dennis never ever give Obama the benefit of the doubt on anything. It's all about picking "teams" and then "cheerleading" for your "crew". Hypocrisy? It's what makes the USA a special place. Not admitting to one's hypocrisy? It's call being disingenuous.

[bigtree]

80. he doesn't

If his vote was at all consequential to passage then the bitching about his vote would make sense. This is just (boring) bickering over nothing.

[HughMoran]

88. It might be boring "bickering" to you

...but to me this is one of the biggest issues ever on DU. It's finally been proved that Kucinich supporters are all for themselves and NOT for the Democrats. A lot of us have wondered if these so-called "Democrats" would be there when the chips were down, and now we've finally got an answer. BIG day on DU - one of the most revealing ever IMO. This is not a game any more.

[bigtree]

97. sez you

. . . and who the fuck are you to decide who is and isn't a Democrat? Who asked you . . . the 'lot' of you?

[tonysam]

62. Lieberman is a traitor and Kucinich is not, don't you know?

I absolutely deplore hero worship of our politicians.

[suzie]

92. Well actually it doesn't seem to be the same when it's about Lieberman.

If he votes against health care reform, it's Obama's fault because he didn't ask that Lieberman be expelled from the Democratic caucus, stripped of his Committee Chairmanships, and otherwise reduced to ashes.

But if Dennis does it--well it's about how how principled Dennis is.

Hypocrisy seems to be the operative term.

[HughMoran]

107. Agreed

It is about hypocrisy.

[The Magistrate]

26. Conscience, Sir? Who Gives a Flipped Finger About His Delicate Conscience?

The larger the gap between 'yeas' and 'nays', the better. He could have made it a notch wider.

If he wants to indulge his conscience, let him take up the priesthood.

The idea of a politician having a conscience, let alone responding to its dictates, is ludicrous, at least under any definition than Mr. Mencken's "Conscience is that still, small voice which whispers someone may be looking."

[bigtree]

48. my point is

. . . that his vote wasn't consequential, not that you should care about his conscience. I only mentioned that motive because of the linkage you made between his opposition and that of the objectors you mentioned. Their motives didn't appear to be the same and the effect of their opposition was negligible. It also appears that there's more substance to his objections than the metaphysical or spiritual concern you suggest.

I really don't see any significant value one more vote would have made to this bill, even if it would have been 'better'.

[The Magistrate]

70. Every Notch Counts, Sir: That is My View.

A margin of three is better than a margin of two, though not so much better as a margin of twenty-two would be.

Some of his objections to the Bill are sound; much in it is distasteful. It does not matter. It was the compromise worked out by the caucus, and all should have voted for it accordingly. Until we learn this, and act a Party, voting en bloc once the collective decision is made, so long will we fail to truly control the agenda, no matter how many seats we occupy. Radicals, of all people, should understand this best of all.

[galloglas]

79. Really ??

A margin of three is better than a margin of two, though not so much better as a margin of twenty-two would be

If I am not mistaken, a law passed by one vote has no less effect than a law passed unanimously. So, how then is a vote margin "better" if it is higher, if not for a person or a Party's self-interest only?

[The Magistrate]

87. Atmospherics Count, Sir

This is one step in a process that still has a good ways to go. At every step of that way, in the floor fight in the Senate, in the Conference Committee, in the final votes on its product, and in next year's election campaigns, the size of the margin matters. Opponents can be cowed by a large margin, and emboldened by a small one. People hoping to make the project of health care reform unpopular, or to make it seem unpopular, will certainly point to a narrow margin of passage as evidence the thing has no great footing.

[bigtree]

96. I'll consider that as this thing moves forward

I usually regard the congressman in question's positions and votes as radical only in their frequent independence from the caucus. Legislation shouldn't be regarded as sound and effective just by virtue of its ability to pass the House of Representatives, by whatever margin. A radical in this present population in Congress and the Senate (especially a liberal one) is going to be one who adheres to the spirit and substance of the changes voters asked for and they promised to represent in office. The caucus is where issues are compromised, sometimes (often) to the point of being antithetical to the very cause.

I recalled the ballyhoo over the 'education reform' with the great Ted Kennedy beaming over his agreement with the republican administration, only to have the bulk of those mandates still waiting for funding. Issues are regularly compromised down to nothing in Congress. We've been told that the passage of some bill, or the other, is the panacea or the springboard to success - countless times - only to find that the legislation is a hollow promise subject to 'the market' or it's impotence blamed on our own consumption. We need good, workable legislation, not just whatever these incredibly compromised and untruthful legislators manage to pass by the House.

As for health legislation, I'd follow the doctor's oath: Do no harm. This legislation looks to have harmful and counterproductive elements in it which the congressman has highlighted with his objections and his nay vote. Fatally flawed folly, I think.

[HughMoran]

74. Clearly that's not true

If it wasn't consequential, then why is DU in meltdown mode over it - with the "Dennisites" making every excuse in the book for his grandstanding?

[bigtree]

103. consequential to it's eventual or final passage, Mr. Moran

What is it with the petty bickering over a vote which wasn't in any way consequential to the final passage?

[DemBones DemBones]

51. So, sir, you don't believe in standing on principle?

You would have had Kucinich vote with the others on the Patriot Act and the Iraq war, too, I suppose. (You do realize he stood on principle against them, too, don't you? Quick, name another Democrat who voted against those giant mistakes. . .)

Your quote from H.L. Mencken -- "Conscience is that still, small voice which whispers someone may be looking" -- is quite ironic in this case. Dennis Kucinich knew quite well that everybody would be looking, that many would misunderstand his vote, and he did the right thing, anyway, by voting to protect his constituents and the rest of us from a bad bill that will enrich the CEOs of health insurance companies and hurt everyone else. He also made a statement explaining his vote, which people really should read instead of engaging in kneejerk criticisms of a man who has always stood up for the poor.

A better quote from Mencken to apply to Dennis Kucinich is:

"Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood."

Mencken also said:

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."

If this bill becomes law, the common people will "get it good and hard," and "it" will be the shaft. The insurance companies will get the gold mine, of course. We'd best hope there are enough sensible people in the Senate to stop the insanity.

[tonysam]

61. The man stands only for himself. He's a politician who found his niche

with the so-called left wing of the party but at the same time has failed to really accomplish anything of note (co-sponsoring bills doesn't count).

His rhetoric helps bring in the donations from the naive.

[The Magistrate]

66. Standing On Them is Fine, Ma'am, Particularly If Accompanied by A Good Kick Or Two To Keep Them Down

A legislative chamber is not a private theater for isolated individuals to display their moral excellence, and legislators are not judged on the excellence of their moral preening. The man should have voted for the Bill, just like every wretch in our Party who voted for the Stupak abomination should have voted for the Bill.

"I am a man of principles, Sir, and chief among them is flexibility."

[galloglas]

44. Nay, sir: Not only those two choices

but also this choice. To praise him.


Kucinich has not, IMHO, "ranged himself alongside Boehner and Cantor and Army's mob of 'tea-baggers', just like the lowest 'blue dog'". He has, instead, ranged himself on the opposite side from most opponents.

Whilst the mendacious forces crafting this abomination of a bill have parlayed in the Valley of Legislatious, Boehner and Cantor, et al., have sat mounted on an adjoining ridge and attacked the aborning laws, while secretly hoping to kill it.


Kucinich has, instead, sat mounted on the opposite ridge and declaimed the bill as, generally, lacking in substance and spirit, antithetical to the benefit of the American populace, and an effort wholely unworthy of those who profess to uphold the better tenets of the Democratic Party. So, you see, sir, that although Kucinich weighs in with the same verdict that Cantor and Boehner do, he does so for an entirely different reason.

Boehner and Cantor vote "nay" because they wish nothing to impede the corporate rapacity of the Body-Bookies (Aetna, Humana, MetLife, PruCO, etc.) and the Potion-Pushing Purveyors of Snakeoil (SGK, Bayer, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, et cetera) who generously feed the re-election funds of their Orc-minions.

Kucinich, on the other hand, has voted "nay" as the conclusive act of a legislator who has seen the finished sausage and seen that it is foul, polluted and made solely with benefit if the sellers of the sausage and the suppliers of the tainted meat, as opposed to the citizens, the supposed end beneficiaries of this bill, for whose weal it was supposedly crafted.

So, in the end, though the vote is the same, Boehner and Cantor voted "nay" from self-interest while Kucinich has voted "nay" from principle (a concept, like ethics, that many lawmakers have yet to grok).


Consequently, that leaves the "Aye" voters to explain, at some point soon, exactly WHY they voted for such a bill when it is so wan and sickly. I suspect the most common answer will be a paraphrase of "It was the best we could get!".

However, sir, do you not agree that such an answer leaves begging the pertinent question, in reply, "If that is the best you could get, then who is responsible, amongst your majority, for providing "what you get" (to vote upon)?

[The Magistrate]

89. No, Sir, He Cast His Vote With Boehner and Cantor And Army's 'Tea-Bag' Mob

The tally of 'yeas' and 'nays' contains no column for 'reason why', and does not because all that matters at that point is the number of notches in each column.

The Bill as it came to the floor was the best thing that could at the moment command sufficient votes in the Democratic caucus to provide a majority. As such, it should have received the votes of every member of the caucus. Those who acted otherwise, from whatever motivation, aligned with the other side, and merit condemnation for doing so. Rep. Kucinich is no different in this than the lowest 'blue dog'.

[galloglas]

95. Your smoke and mirrors have blinded me.

Or, perhaps, with the clop-clop-clop of the Congressional hobnails drowning your words, I'm unable (or loathe) to understand.

But what a wonderful world you propose! Just "yeas" and "nays" to guide us. No more "Other answer" to mark with check marks. Pure joy, no more conscience to guide us or to follow. Alberto G. moved there didn't he?

[The Magistrate]

101. Then My Work Here Is Done, Sir....

"Shoes for Industry! Shoes for Defense!"

[HughMoran]

5. Of course

He shot himself in the foot. The same people who call people who are happy with the bill "blind followers" or "cheerleaders" make "Dennis can do no wrong" arguments a minute later. Can't they see the utter hypocrisy they are promoting?

[cyclezealot]

11. I hardly consider that bill a victory.

. Yep. He hardly can do no wrong. Never does. And wait. the Senate will make it even less palatable. Only in America could we remedy the most expensive system in the world , by making it even more expensive.. Oh well. We've money to burn.

[galloglas]

58. About that bill ??

As another Democrat once asked, apropos to something else, "Where's the beef ???"

[HughMoran]

75. The bill is quite good

If you don't like it, fine with me, but that isn't exactly a supporting argument for Dennis the traitor.

[galloglas]

78. Far from it!

the bill does virtually nothing to cure any problems with Health Care in the US. That was Kucinich's objection and my own. And I am a veteran of the FinPlan/Insurance/Banking industry.

Let me ask one question of you. What good is a bill which largely abolishes underwriting standards and decisions by an industry which is being given, largely, access to the entire population of the US????

Underwriting standards only serve a purpose when an insurance company is trying to vet their client base to include healthier individuals in order to increase profits. When the entire industry has the entire buying population within their grasp, who have no viable health care options except a possible ability to write a check for millions, if necessary, what reason is there for them to vet them via underwriting?

So, if you can point out something in this bill that is actually worthwhile, please point it out. What exactly has the House Majority proposed to benefit me which does not have the imprimatur of the large mega-corporations which control this whole national episode of Kabuki theatre?

[HughMoran]

83. There's so much good about this bill

The fact that you are so negative on it makes it clear to me that you'll never listen to reason, but...

Here's my personal story.

Family plan at my tiny company $36k/yr, going up 10% in Jan, so $40k/year. If the bill passes, my company will no longer offer "ass rape" insurance and I will be able to keep my $700/mo. Cobra coverage until the exchanges are set up. Huge saving there. After that, the rate I will have to pay based on the Kaiser calculator is about $15k/year - still a gigantic savings for me. Why do you want me to go broke by having insanely unaffordable coverage? Why do you hate me and my daughters? You would like to see us die for your benefit?

[galloglas]

90. I asked for an example

I asked you if you can point out something in this bill that is actually worthwhile. You did not respond with a section of proposed law. Why not?

you gave me an anecdote of what you believe may happen and you have not justified that anecdote as pertinent or believeale.

But why do you do the GOP Boogie and turn your reply into an insult?? (i.e., Why do you want me to go broke by having insanely unaffordable coverage? Why do you hate me and my daughters? You would like to see us die for your benefit?

This is a law we are speaking of, not solely involved with your own self-interest. Is your support of the House bill so without merit that you need to insult me? Is your need to attack Kucinich so great that you would recycle the GOP "death panel fear meme" into You would like to see us die for your benefit?.

But to answer one question of yours. Why do you want me to go broke by having insanely unaffordable coverage?

It is not me that wants that. It is the insurance companies and their corporate cronies that want that. It is the spineless Congress, who take their contributions, that will make it reality.

[HughMoran]

93. I think the tone of your "cite an example" question was rightly seen by me as aggressive

It's the sign of a desperate argument when you ask ME to cite specific examples from a huge bill that most people haven't read. I spent quite a bit of time discussing these details here over the past week and don't have the desire to "prove" to you that I've done the reading (which I did). Go to the House website and read the bill for yourself with an open mind. I bet you'll be rather surprised at how many very good provisions there are in this bill. Seriously though, why shouldn't I be annoyed when someone says that my ability to now have insurance isn't a good thing. You'll never see things my way - why should I waste any more time discussing this with you?

[galloglas]

100. You mistook a serious query

as aggression. I am sorry. Reread my post to you and fail to see why. But, if you will just take me seriously, it should not matter.

I asked for you to cite some provision, section, whatever, simply because that is the way the bill can be put into view. I think perhaps my assertion that I am, in effect, an "industry insider" might have caught your attention.

My point is this. I am very well acquainted with the agenda of the insurance companies and know what they are doing, what they plan to do, what they want to do and what they will do.

You seemed focused on yourself and family. It seems that you believe that what is in the bill may affect you and that it will be beneficial. I simply asked you to point out where and why in order thgat we might determine if what you think will happen will actually be so.

I've read the bill (being from the industry, I had little choice) assumed that you (as most) had read the highlights given by the House members. Either way, this is not going to be a wishing/hoping situation.

You will either get what you want/wish, or you will "get had". My assumption is that most persons prefer to know if they are likely to get had. That was my reason for asking for specifics.

But to answer your question "why should I waste any more time discussing this with you, perhaps you should not. My 40+ years in that unsavory business may not be enough to sway your beliefs with any troubling truths.

Still and all, why would you insult me for wishing the industry top be divested of its stranglehold on Americans?

[ProSense]

8. Kucinich believes his health insurance coverage is a giveaway to the insurance industry

and that others should be denied the same access (on principle).

[Bjorn Against]

15. That is a comple misrepresentation of his position.

You know damn well that this bill does not even remotely come close to providing Americans the same health care as members of Congress have.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. Right vote, wrong reason

I can see what you are saying on general policy.

But if DK's stated reason was about choice and preservation of rights (which it wasn't) it would be different.

No caucus membership trumps upholding the constitution.

The bill with Stupak is unconstitutional, IMO, and I do not subscribe to the "vote for unconstitutional shit and let the courts sort it out" theory of legislation.

Absent a compelling state interest in restricting abortion coverage it violates the Establishment Clause.

That's my opinion, but I would never vote for something I believed to be unconstitutional. Ever. For any reason.

That would probably make me a short-term Congressman, but that's just what it is.

I asked in another thread whether it would have been right to support a whites-only health plan under Truman if it would have gotten the thing passed. That would have benefited millions and blacks would be no worse off than before.

I am not offering the two as precise equivalents but it makes the point.

There are things that must not bend to the hedonic calculus.

[Swamp Rat]

19. Wrong vote, right reason

Perhaps it was a poor tactical move made by DK, but I would not call it hedonic calculus, unless you add 'extent' to the criterion and eliminate the rest. :)

If 'extent' is the raison d'etre, then I am d'accord.

[grantcart]

25. If it is unconstitutional then so much the better

right the bill get the Cao and the others to vote for it and then challenge that particular part of the bill in the courts and have it removed.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

41. I hear you but I must object strongly

The courts serve the role of back-stop to the other branches out of necessity but it is pernicious to ever act in Congress or the WH based on an expectation of a court correcting something.

Every act of Congress or the President has a constitutional interpretive element that must be taken seriously.

In a world where Congress passes an anti flag-burning law unanimously as good politics, serene in the assumption that it will be struck down, is a world where Congress is unanimously contemptuous of the Constitution.

That is dangerous. And a mindset that contributed to the worst of the Bush era.

Why read the anti-terrorism laws the WH sends over? The courts will scrub the bad stuff.

Sorry, but you are square in pet-peeve territory here... the abuse of the courts as political fall-guy by the other branches is, IMO, one of the most dangerous developments of the last forty years.

[grantcart]

55. And if the legislature was a democratic institution then I would agree

The Senate is regressing and becoming less democratic as an institution every day.


In the begining the rights of the smaller states was protected by the undemocratic Senate who could marshal 51% of the vote with votes from states that represented 30% of the population.


Key point the complete legislative mechanism was set up so that 30% of the population could veto that legislation. Now it was thought at the time that this would be useful in protecting states rights. It was never imagined that it would be more successfully used in diminishing individual rights.

Because rural areas are becoming less viable economically (through the supreme irony of Republican policies) 51% of the Senate can now be made up of from Senators coming from states that only represent 17% of the population. (The combined population of the least 20 populace states is less than California giving California a 40 - 2 disadvantage in the Senate.)


Now because the Senate started as a more 'gentlemanly' club where no one desired to stop another Senator from having their say there was never any calls for votes. Votes were simply taken at the end of debate.


Eventually it was decided that there should be a "call of the question" or vote of cloture to end debate and that was set at 66%.

In the first 100 years it was used less than a dozen times.

About 100 years ago it was - quite arbitrarily - set to 60 votes.

Now it is used as a matter of course on every legislation.




The minority veto, which started at 30% has fallen to 17% because of demographics is now 10% because of the filibuster rule. And you can make a point that because of low turnout, etc. that a really well coordinated 5-7% of the population can veto legislation.


So I understand your point. It would be nice if the constitution were allowed to be used in a straight forward way.

Unfortunately unless the Senate removes the filibuster (and even then 17% of the population will still have veto power) then it is going to become more and more necessary to use whatever means you can from a parlimentary point of view to bring the Senate, and the Legislative branch, closer to its original position, which is still far short of a democratic institution.

My point is that we have moved far far away from the balance of power and the principle of democratic institutions and that will inevitably end in important legislation having some ugly step children in it to pass it.

[galloglas]

77. Well said!

Every act of Congress or the President has a constitutional interpretive element that must be taken seriously.

In a world where Congress passes an anti flag-burning law unanimously as good politics, serene in the assumption that it will be struck down, is a world where Congress is unanimously contemptuous of the Constitution.

That is dangerous. And a mindset that contributed to the worst of the Bush era.

Why read the anti-terrorism laws the WH sends over? The courts will scrub the bad stuff.


:thumbsup:

[DemBones DemBones]

99. Ah, but women aren't important, right? Blacks are,

unless they're black women.

Women are talking online of action a la "Lysistrata" due to this bill. Perhaps then men will listen, but I have no illusions about Congressmen, they'll just buy sex.

Except DK, who probably has the most beautiful wife in D.C. and who didn't sell women out. Maybe jealousy is behind some DU men's resentment of Kucinich? Not too many guys marry a woman as gorgeous as Elizabeth Kucinich.

[unblock]

12. well not quite. IF his vote were the deciding factor, then YES.

however, once the democratic leadership announced that they had enough votes for passage, once it was clear his vote was NOT needed, THEN and only then was he clear to make whatever symbolism he thinks he can make out of a "no" vote.

[HughMoran]

22. Do the 38 other "blue dogs" get the same special consideration for standing on their "principals"

No? Color me surprised.

[Barack_America]

32. And what about the GOP then?

They too voted against the bill on "principle".

Bottom line, with this vote, there is no difference between the positions of Kucinich, the Blue Dogs and the GOP. "Nay" is "nay".

[HughMoran]

34. That's what is boils down to

As hard as I try, I can't make a "yes" look like a "no".

[galloglas]

84. You are, I believe, wrong

You failed to read an earlier reply that negates your statement.

Please read "Nay, sir: Not only those two choices" upthread

[Barack_America]

94. 1). You have me confused with The Magistrate.

Which, I am frankly honored by.

2). I posted before your upthread post.

[grantcart]

106. Do some research

Kucinich is in a deep blue district and walks off the reservation.


How in the hell are you going to enforce caucus discipline when the people in easy districts don't respect it.

14 of the blue dogs who voted against the bill are in districts that McCain took by 14 percent. 8 won by 5 points or less - 4 by 1 percent.

Why should they take a difficult vote when the guy that Obama takes by 20 points doesn't bother.


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/08/us/politics/1108-health-care-vote.html

[HughMoran]

108. I agree with you completely

This was a very lame stunt and I'm not going to simply "forgive and forget" what Dennis did yesterday.

[AllentownJake]

14. A whole lot of crying over a single congressman from Ohio

When you guys have 12 Senators that make the house blue dogs look like princes of virtue.

This bill sucks, what the Senate is going to produce is going to be out right offensive with anyone who has any values.

Keep pissing on Dennis though and cheering us over the cliff.

[grantcart]

21. You miss the point entirely

Its crying about a single congressman from one of the bluest seats in the country.



His crossing the aisle and voting with Michelle Bachman is giving permission to every blue dog to do the same thing when a progressive bill comes up.


All he did yesterday was weaken caucus discipline. It will cost us when we try and push more progressive legislation.


In the future when we want to enforce it against Democrats from red districts they will simply say "If you can't get people in super safe seats to follow caucus discipline then why should those of us from red districts do it".


When that happens we will all go crazy about how the blue dogs sold the caucus down the river.


If you want to keep them on progressive issues you have to show them how caucus discipline works. Say what you want, stomp your feet but on important legislation you vote with the caucus period.

[AllentownJake]

28. The bill is going no where

We are about where Bill Clinton was in 1993. The house wasn't the problem in 1993 just as in 1993 it is the Senate.

[ProSense]

29. "We are about where Bill Clinton was in 1993." How utterly ridiculous.

You really aren't dealing with reality are you?

[AllentownJake]

31. Nope I have a firm foundation in reality

I'm not the one spewing DLC talking points on a daily basis.

By the way, I'm still waiting for that Afghan/Pakistan conflict thread holding the President accountable for war.

[ProSense]

35. Not if you think that Clinton got a bill out of the committees, much less passed by the House.

That's losing a grip on reality.

[AllentownJake]

37. The House was waiting for the Senate to act

because they didn't want to be left holding the bag.

[ProSense]

40. Nonsense. n/t

[galloglas]

85. Sounds like a call to arms

to have our Democratic representatives to march in lockstep over cobblestones, kicking high with their hob-nailed boots.

Sorry, but it does.

[tabasco]

17. Abject stupidity on Kucinich's part.

He failed to represent the people of his district and marginalized himself.

[ixion]

20. ooo... look at you marching in lock step

you must be so proud.

Kucinich speaks the truth, as always, and I admire him for that.

[grantcart]

24. He speak whenever he wants and say whatever he wants

I don't care about that. He is from a deep blue district.



When a progressive piece of legislation comes up, lets say DADT repeal, and we want Dems from red districts to vote for it - in the name of caucus solidarity, they will laugh and say "easy to say when even Reps from deep blue districts can vote how they want.



We will lose votes on progressive issues because gadflys undermine caucus solidarity.



When it comes to crunch time Kucinich doesn't hold a candle to Kennedy, Dean, or Socialist Bernie Sanders - all highly princpled giants that made their points and still support the final product.


In the history books, and on Fox today, there are no asterisks - Kucinich's vote looks exactly like Michelle Bachman.

[cyclezealot]

27. Progressive. ?.

Who says.. At least Kucinich was not like Stupak and ran across the aisle to kiss his Gooper friends on the cheek. From Huffpo.
.


..
There were plenty of cowardly votes in the House last night but there was only one truly brave one. The unsung hero of the night was Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich. Despite enormous pressure to support H.R. 3962, Rep. Kucinich did the right thing and voted 'no'. Unlike the Blue Dog votes against the bill, he did it for all the right reasons.

In a principled and practical statement, Rep. Kucinich said what a growing number of progressives have realized as we've watched real health care reform be compromised again and again.

snip
.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/kucinichs-brave-health-vo_b_349857.html&cp

[grantcart]

42. In the world of deal makers and real legislation with real votes Kucinich

changed his status from opinion maker to gadfly.


He is free to make whatever statements he feels compelled to make. When he is looking for moderates to support legislation he wants past they won't give him the time of day.



Real progressives that actually get real legislation passed? That would be Kennedy, Dean, Saunders.

[cyclezealot]

45. Once the public option is removed

I'd not be so sure Saunders will vote for the final product. The public option will almost assuredly be removed to pull aboard Snowe.

[ixion]

33. It's a bad bill

and I'm glad he didn't vote for it. I guess I don't see it as anything I would consider progressive. It is distinctly corporatist.

True, in the history books, their vote on this would look the same, however if you took that same history book and compared the differences between their other votes the distinction would be plain to see.

[goclark]

46. I love Dennis ~ always have ...but I agree with you grantcart

on this one.

If I lived in his District I would not be happy with that vote.

And,as much as I love Dennis-- he can still be wrong sometimes.

[happy2bhere]

23. Do you know if these calculations are correct?

"Crunched the #s, & it looks like by Jan/2010 I'll have health insurance for $80 or less/month."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6913410

As much as I agree with kucinich that the insurance companies are the problem not the solution, since we are not looking at single payer, these figures look like they will help many poor people have free health care. That seems like something Kucinich would be supporting.

[cyclezealot]

36. Cost savings will be a farce.

For families making about 60 K was it. they'll have to pay out of pocket for their policies. No subsidies. that will likely put them into poverty. Insurance companies said this plan would result in higher premiums . I believe them.

[happy2bhere]

43. but what about poor people?

Families making 20,000 per year will now have free health insurance.

Is this maybe just a good start? I would think that progressives want to help the people who will die rather than get the medical help they need. People who are truly poor would never go to a hospital knowing the cost, they would rather die than put their families in even worse financial problems.

[cyclezealot]

47. Any plan that costs those making $ 60 plus K per year.

1/6 of their income - Will not last..... It will bring about a Gooper resurgence. Spearheaded by those making 60 K plus who will rebel. As a result of their anger, the Repukes will come back. As if 60 K per year for a family of four is all that much cash. Still they are influential in the political process and backbone of the political process.

[happy2bhere]

59. we can hope the rebellion will push them to single payer eventually

but in the meantime, there are a helluva a lot of truly poor people who think 60,000 per year is a damn good wage. With this ailing economy, the numbers of people who will benefit is growing. There are many disinfranchised truly poor people that might just decide to vote again, who might be able to show up at the polls again because subsidized health insurance helps them feel well enough to do so.

Either way, the republicans plan to stage a new newt gingrich type takeover, and unless we take back the media from the lying corrupt a**holes, they will succeed.

[cyclezealot]

65. Considering the cost of tuition for their kids, co pays, etc

No it won't give us single payer= it will give us at least 4 years of goopers and a rescission of this bill.

[LWolf]

30. Yes,

and I am free to agree with him, and to say so, when and where I want.

He was right.

As usual.

[Mme. Defarge]

49. Ever the voice of reason ...

Merci mon brave.

[ProSense]

52. It was pure

hypocrisy on Kucinich's part.

[NotGivingUp]

56. wow...he didn't vote to F_ _ _ us over...shame on him...NOT! big u(nrec) for you. eom

[tonysam]

57. His whole career has been that way

He's never been able to work with others, and in politics you have to do it to get things done.

Yammering on the House floor about pet progressive issues doesn't cut the mustard, I'm afraid.

[berni_mccoy]

60. K&R. And this isn't the first time he's done it.

[DemBones DemBones]

68. No, the guy actually voted against the Patriot Act and the Iraq war.

What a fool. Let's replace him with someone more like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, the rest of the go-along-to-get-along crowd.

Then we won't have to listen to anyone saying bad legislation is bad legislation, we can just find out when it bites us in the ass.

[RB TexLa]

63. Wrong, the people of his district elected him not a poll calculator

His judgment was part of what was elected by the people of his district, if they don't like the way he uses his judgment in voting they are free to support and vote for someone else in 2010. I'd rather have a more DLC type win over him but looking at the history of his elections I do not think he is going to have any problem defeating Democratic challengers and then his republican challenger in 2010.

[grantcart]

104. Your wrong on the logic and the facts

Obama outperformed Kucinich in the district so using your logic then he has a better claim.


His action isn't progressive its stupid.


In the future when we need a sense of caucus discipline to hold moderates in on more progressive issues they will point to the fact that if representatives in safe districts are able to go off the reservation then so should they.


Kennedy, Dean, Saunders all intelligent progressives who know how to actually get legislation passed and to build the kind of coalitions you need to govern.

[RB TexLa]

105. They don't have to point to anything, they can vote the way they want to vote

That is their job, same as Kucinich.

[MadHound]

67. He is representing the wishes of his constituents,

As you say, he comes from a heavily blue district, thus his principled stand makes sense. Just like his principled, and correct stance on many other controversial issues over the past years, such as the Iraq War and the Patriot Act.

Yet you damn him for doing his job. Or is it because he is, once again, on the right side of the issue?

As far as the party walking away from Dennis, well, that happened long, long ago, so what has he got to lose?

Darn those Congressmen who refuse to do anything else besides being the conscience of the Congress.

[backwoodsbob]

82. the man was one of the few who stood up for us

I'll vote Kuchinich over Obama anyday

[PopSixSquish]

91. As a Democrat and a Progressive, I Would Not Do Anything Which Puts Me on the Same Side

as Michelle Bachman, John Boehner and Eric Cantor. That's what Dennis did during his "pretty, perfect princess" act last night. Regardless of his intentions or reasons, who do you want to stand with when the man comes around?

I would rather stand with Anthony Weiner, Alan Grayson, Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi any day of the week and twice on Sundays...

[derby378]

98. Progressive issues? The House bill is anything BUT progressive

Kucinich did the right thing. And we will not forget that in 2010 and beyond.