Last night, the House of Representatives passed their version of Obamacare, on a 220-215 vote. While the bill stands little chance of passing the Senate, there’s a bigger problem we all must deal with:
.
A Republican voted for it.
.
Yes. A Republican. There’s a RINO in the ranks! GET YOUR PITCHFORKS. EL DIABLO (Democrat in All But Label Only) HAS SULLIED THE PARTY. SOMEBODY CALL SARAH PALIN.
.
The Republican, Joseph Cao, represents Louisiana’s 2nd district, made up of most of New Orleans and some of its surrounding areas, including a portion of Katrina ravaged Jefferson Parish, the largest in the state.The Louisiana 2nd district is also one of the most Democratic in the nation. Cao’s predecessor, Congressman William Jefferson (D-Prison) never won the district with less than 57% of the vote, running unopposed once and winning with 78% in 1994, the year of the Republican Revolution.
.
It has a Cook Partisanship index of D+25, making it one of the most Democratic leaning in the country and one of the most, if not the most Democratic districts held by a Republican. It went for Obama in 2008 with 75% of the vote, and in 2004 it went for John Kerry with 75% too.
.
In fact, Cao is the first Republican to hold that seat since 1891.
.
None of this matters, because his vote last night demonstrates that he’s simply a back-stabbing RINO who wormed his way into the ranks of the party so as to further the President’s insidious plans to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. I mean, this guy is such a back-stabber, he even went so far as to vote WITH Republicans on the amendment banning public funds for abortion that passed earlier just to cover his tracks.
.
And since the Democrats only needed 218 votes to pass, he represented the 220th vote, giving them two more than they needed to win.
.
Obviously, it is guys like Cao, who don’t vote the way the party wants them to, but do vote the way his constituents want him to, that are destroying the Republican Party and America. We all need to rise up and march on New Orleans, pitchforks and blazing torches in hand, to demand he resign or, at the very least, switch parties.
.
Right.
.
(For those who are not frequent readers of TC, the above post is in jest.)
![[Post to Twitter]](http://www.tooconservative.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter.png){kind=icon}
Nov 08th by Brian S
This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.
Chris
on November 8th, 2009Me too.
Sunday morning hangover?
Loudoun Lady
on November 8th, 2009I’m glad you think so, Chris, because I wrote it to sound dumb.
Brian S
on November 8th, 2009LL, you aren’t up in arms over a Republican voting for Obamacare? You’re slacking.
Brian S
on November 8th, 2009I’m not slacking. This guy Cao will either be primaried out or lose his seat to a Dem in 2010.
The whole vote and bill is frightening and I’d think you’d have a little more to say about what a disaster this is for the country over slamming your own party in parody. It’s to be expected of you Brian. “Party infighting over what is good for the country” seems to be your mantra, at least you are consistent.
Loudoun Lady
on November 8th, 2009LL, I’m not concerned with the vote last night because the Senate doesn’t have the votes to pass anything close to what’s in the House bill. So last night’s fight is not the big fight to be worried about. The fact that almost 40 moderate democrats voted against the bill should demonstrate that it’s chances in the Senate are slim to none.
.
I only get frightened when there’s a reason to, and there’s no reason to, yet.
.
And I’m glad to see that I wasn’t wrong – you do hope Cao loses, you just assume it’s a given.
Brian S
on November 8th, 2009I just don’t appreciate the sarcasm in thinking many of us conservatives would be furious with Cao. We aren’t dumb, we know what it will take to keep Cao’s seat. No Republican in their right mind is going to call for Cao to get primaried. Now if it was a congressman from a district like some here in Virginia that is a different story. Chances are Cantor and Boehner saw that Pelosi had the votes so let Cao off the leash.
Chris
on November 8th, 2009nit pick, but shouldn’t it be “El Diab-N-o”?
tee hee
Barbara Munsey
on November 8th, 2009What your trying to do Brain is rehash a worn out, irritating argument. It’s called goading and you seem petty after the week of back and forth on the RINO wars on TC. So, just sit back and keep repeating to yourself this whole Healthcare thingy is going to blow over, that the meshing of the 2 bills will be just fine and we Conservatives had our hackles up for nothing – it’s great being in the squishy middle – nothing to worry about, everything is okey dokey smokey.
Lastly, I’d like to congratualte Rep Cao, he joins the ranks of Scozzfavva and Specter with your support. Dan and RD’s heart’s are swelling with pride!
Loudoun Lady
on November 8th, 2009vote the way his constituents want him to? Isn’t that what we elect our Representatives to do?
This is the problem within the GOP. We don’t craft our message according to the district. If our party really wanted to, we could be competitive in places like CA or Illinois, but we’re too busy with saving the babies and making sure that those gays can’t get married! Shame on them!
Is Cao going to get primaried now? Conservatives, go ahead. Win a primary against him and then lose a general election. Or run a conservative. After all, that worked SO WELL for Doug Hoffman.
Not Jim Moran
on November 8th, 2009Sometimes I wonder if this is the short-bus blog. Because as plan as day as conservative try and make it, you can’t understand.
Dede Scozzafava got what she got because a) the way she was selected, and b) in that particular district we can do better than Dede and win. The women was a liberal! Not even a moderate, the Daily Kos endorsded her for god sakes.
About Cao. We all know that was a near-fluke win and that in order to keep that seat, Cao more than any other member of the Republican Caucus needs to have exceptions made.
Chris
on November 8th, 2009Not Jim, Please read the Scozzafavva thread for more information. This has all been discussed, diced, sliced, julienned and regurgitated – 14 times. Brian swings back and forth with his decisions, he was for Dede before he was against her, then for her again after Hoffman lost. It’s very confusing, but feel free to read the whole ugly mess.
Loudoun Lady
on November 8th, 2009Chris, if this is the “short-bus blog” I’m not sure what that means for yours, seeing as we get ten times the traffic.
.
I already demonstrated earlier that NY-23 is not a conservative district – I don’t know what else I have to do to convince you otherwise. I pulled the Cook index, I pulled the history of the district, and I pulled the election results. I even looked at McHugh’s record. Throw in the fact that he’s working for Obama now, and that should cap that the district was historically Republican, not historically conservative. Other than her endorsements, I haven’t seen any kind of in-depth review of her ideology.
.
But this isn’t about NY-23. This is about LA-02.
.
Cao voted the way his district wanted him to, which is fine. His vote didn’t make a difference. At least give him credit for not buckling on the abortion issue (a legitimate abortion issue, at that).
.
LL, one area that you and I can agree on is that Obamacare will be bad for the country, and we need to stop it. The difference between you and I, though, seems to be that you can’t recognize where and when the real fight is going to be. It’s not going to be in the House. It’s going to be in the Senate.
.
As for supporting Cao, he’s a Republican, so of course I support him. Specter isn’t, so I don’t. You can stop trolling that nonsense now.
Brian S
on November 8th, 2009Barbara – you’re right. That should be “label” rather than “name.” It’s hard for me to keep up with the ridiculous acronyms.
Brian S
on November 8th, 2009Trolling? Please Brian.
The abortion amendment will get stripped out, and all the Stupaks and Caos will have a hard time explaining how they voted for a bill the second time that has abortion funding provisions. And they will. And you will shrug and say, well, the process is what it is!
Loudoun Lady
on November 8th, 2009LL, if this gets past the Senate and there’s a conference report that is anything close to what’s in the current House bill and any Republicans vote for it, then I, along with everyone else who is even remotely right of center, will be up in arms along with you.
.
There are certain votes that you don’t get a pass on. Final passage of a health insurance reform bill like the one passed last night is one vote nobody gets a pass on.
.
But I’m not going to get worked up about a bill passed as step 4 in a 20+ step process.
Brian S
on November 8th, 2009In a two party system each election is defined by the incumbant and the outside party is the anti-incumbant. This is simple power politics. The ideological pure parties are the Marxists, Greens, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, etc who don’t have any chance of winning. That’s because the middle doesn’t tolerate ideology given the winner take all voting scheme we have.
.
A fairer voting method would allow voter extremes to be represented proportionately irrespective of where people lived. Legislative coalitions would then be made and broken amongst a half-dozen parties for each issue and geography rather than nationally at the 2-party level. Instead of going for party purity activits should try to change the voting system so politicians can be true to their ideology instead of playing for the squishy center. Congress would do a better job debating something like health care reform if all political views were represented instead of only 2 party sanctioned ones.
Ed Myers
on November 8th, 2009It was pretty dumb for any republican to vote for the Stupak amendment. They all should have voted “present” and made the dems take the measure to the floor as-is.
Cato the Elder
on November 8th, 2009Didn’t think of that Cato, but good strategy.
Brian, the problem about being “up in arms” at the last minute is that the train has already left the station, hit you, reversed and is coming at you full steam ahead for another head on collision. The time to be “up in arms” was 6 months ago.
If the final bill is even 10% as destructive as this House bill we are majoring screwed. Sorry you don’t see the repercussions, or perhaps you are comfortable with just moderate damage to our ecomony and country.
Loudoun Lady
on November 8th, 2009that was just petty lw…
Dan (Not the liberal one)
on November 8th, 2009LL, when the “last minute” can take two months, there’s no reason to get upset after this vote. There’s next to nothing we can do in the House of Representatives. We just don’t have the votes, and we have less today than we did last week, thanks to the fracas in NY-23.
.
Like I said, you have to pick your battles, and the battleground is the Senate, not the House.
Brian S
on November 8th, 2009Cato, that would have been a good strategy, but had the Republicans walked out or not voted, the ardent pro-life faction would be up in arms saying they did nothing. It was a catch-22.
Brian S
on November 8th, 2009Loudoun Watcher, are you really complaining that someone is saying “y’all”? Seriously, if you have a problem with what TC says, make an argument about the content, rather than complaining that you are too much of a Yankee to be able to deal with “y’all”.
CR UVa
on November 8th, 2009what’s wrong with “yall”? I say it all the time. Though I often agree with Brian, I will disagree here with this thought: we need to stay in the face of the Dem CongressIdjits (looking at you, tommy perriello) all the time. Yesterday, Perriello was listed as “yes, no & undecided”. maybe we could have swung his vote–it was worth a try even though unlikely. we cannot let up. With our Senators & with the Republican Senators up there wanting to compromise about everyDamnthing, I don’t feel comfortable leaving Pelosicare up to the Senate to defeat. yall.
kelley in virginia
on November 8th, 2009The latest details on this case: http://www.35energy.com/news/the-gop-vote-why-cao-said-yes.html
James Williams
on November 8th, 2009I am a native Virginian, not a Yankee. Y’all seems like a contrived expression from someone who came from Northern Virginia. And my complaint was genuine… it’s annoying. If you don’t like my post, too bad. I don’t like a lot of stuff I see on this blog, including some really crummy language. And kelley, saying it is not annoying at all. Typing it for others to read is annoying. Enough said.
Looks like Too Conservative couldn’t take the criticism. My “y’all” post is gonzo.
Loudoun Watcher
on November 8th, 2009I know Jeff will love this, but who cares. It is a pretty liberal district, and Cao is a heck of a lot better than William Jefferson. Would it be better if he voted with the caucus? Sure. The better news is the number of Democrats who voted against the bill. They understand they have to support it if they want a chance of being reelected.
Looking forward to the red wave in 2010.
Willie Deutsch
on November 8th, 2009Cao is going to lose regardless. He can either lose with his reputation in tact, or he can sell out to vote for a bill that will cost us a trillion dollars and put a czar in charge of rationing healthcare. He made his choice.
Its sort of like Poisson…was it really worth it? Now he’s the sleazy guy who introduced the neighborhood kids to “adult” themes…instead of a just a delegate who served honorably for 4 years and got caught in a bad year.
NovaConservative
on November 8th, 2009I see the rationale of letting Cao of the hook, I certainly won’t waste time donating to a primary opponent LA when I need to help Keith Fimian beat Connolly. If it was me I would have voted my conscience, but Cao voted against Crap and Trade and the Stimulus, Is Pro-Life and we need that seat to reach a majority.
PWConservative
on November 8th, 2009I do see the benefit of message and campaign being crafted to the district.
I look at some of the blue blogs, and people in Norfolk and Roanoke who know nothing whatsoever of Caputo, LeMunyon or the 67th are in angry mourning over Caputo’s defeat, because he was “such a great delegate”.
Well, if all you know is the scorecard of whatever NGO is your single issue, then, yeah I guess, for all those people miles away who can’t vote for or against him…
I am aghast, but not surprised, that this passed.
I am heartened by how many Dems voted against it, and how narrow the margin of passage was.
Maybe the war continues with thinking that “change” means push the agenda, and damn the actual voting taxpayers (and I do mean both)?
Barbara Munsey
on November 8th, 2009Dump every singe vote that lets the Dems say the word “bipartisan”.
What an idiot. He turned full against any reasonable presentation of FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY with his vote.
He just endorsed a huge number of pork projects, signed on for the biggest hit to our deficit in 230 something years, and flubbed his nose at his own party doing it.
At least the blue dogs are worried.
I’m also waiting for that red wave in 2010. There are about 220 more reasons for it, now.
The Bulletproof Monk
on November 8th, 2009ALL Y’ALL should be upset about what happened last night. It’s disgusting that we have a House of representatives that is NOT representing the wishes of the people for whom they purport to represent. The people, the voters, made it clear this summer that they do not want this takeover of health care. The people, the voters, were ignored last night. One would have thought that the VA and NJ elections would have been a wake up call, but they are deaf to the voters. They will pay a dear price for that deafness.
When I saw the Perriello vote, I immediately thought of Kelley. I view his vote largely as good news because it wouldn’t have mattered to the result AND it assures that he will lose next year. Perriello will be a one term wonder, flash in the pan. Like Deeds and Jody Wagner we’ll never hear of him again.
(FYI to Loudoun Watcher, all y’all is the plural of y’all. Thought you’d want to know.)
Lovettsville Lady
on November 8th, 2009I don’t think Cao has a chance in Hell of holding onto that overwhelming Democratic district in the Big Easy for very long. He won it on a fluke because of the William Jefferson scandal; and, as soon as the Dems find a viable Black candidate down there, Mr. Cao will be history. Unless he pulls an Arlen Specter and crosses the carpet. Cao is now claiming that he got big promises of assistance from Obama in this district. Well. don’t hold your breath down there, Johnny Boy. I bet you’ll soon see the underside of a bus.
Forget about Cao. I say concentrate on the truly possible seats — beginning with Perriello and Connolly. I’m counting on Kelly in Virginia to keep us up-to-date and let us know where our monetary contributions ought to
go.
Wolverine
on November 8th, 2009Yes, Obama and the dems think that they WON and therefore they get to ram through whatever they want. They also know that their time is limited, they must get it all done prior to the next election. Since Congress only works 3 days a week, and has frequent long breaks, that doesn’t give them much time. They couldn’t care less what the people want. It’s their agenda, all the time, as long as they can do it.
If I never saw Nancy Pelosi’s face again, I could die a happy woman.
How about that Dennis Kucinich? Vote against the bill! LOL The man is such an unpredictable loon that he’s funny.
Lovettsville Lady
on November 8th, 2009They don’t even have that long, Lovettsville – they only have as long as Obama’s poll numbers stay up. And the way they’ve been dropping, time is running out for this reform.
.
Kucinich always votes against this stuff, because it never goes far enough for him. Because this wasn’t a full blown recreation of the British National Health System, it’s not good enough.
Brian S
on November 8th, 2009I am GREATLY going to enjoy the defeat of Obamacare in the Senate. Can’t wait!
Lloyd the Idiot
on November 8th, 2009Got a scary chuckle running through my bookmarked “progressive” blogs tonight: the phrase of the evening in angry icy Blue land in denouncing those Democrats who voted against the bill is that they MUST go down next year because “they voted against history!”
Wow.
Could give a whole new meaning to “ccordinated campaigning”, eh? lol
Barbara Munsey
on November 8th, 2009Brian S, I get your point, but you don’t know for sure that ObamaCare will fail in the Senate. If they can’t get 60 votes, they will pass it using Reconciliation
Chris P
on November 8th, 2009As soon as I saw the word “RINO” in a post on TC I knew it had to be sarcasm…
Rtwng Extrmst
on November 8th, 2009Have you ever noticed that “RINO” is an acronym used most often by self-styled “moderates”? Guilty conscience, perhaps?
James Young
on November 8th, 2009Barbara,
The lefty blogs are also whining about the lack of health care for illegals. Did you know that those illegal women will not be allowed to have abortions paid for by the rest of us? Nor will they have access to free birth control. The horrors! Then they go on to whine “No human being is illegal”!
The clueless shall always be with us……….unfortunately.
Lovettsville Lady
on November 9th, 2009The hardcores have already determined that what they’re calling “the Stupid amendment” will go away.
Barbara Munsey
on November 9th, 2009James, no I haven’t noticed that. At least, not here.
Brian S
on November 9th, 2009James, almost without exception, I see dunbassed johnny-one-notes throwing it around. This is one of theose exceptions. Brian, I’m not even hardcore…but the party didn’t need these two sorry excuses of representation (Scarface or Cow) to water down the brand. This is the very type of action by Republicans that turned voters off adter the Contract with America. If Republicans had stayed true to what they laid outr in that Contract, we’d still be in Congress in large numbers. Sadly, those who were swept in on that contract started loosening up and voted like dems and spent money like dems. The average voter out here said “wtf…might as well put the dems back in”.
Dodd’s constituents want his head on a stick. Don’t tell me about the leanings of any district. If their representation screws up bad enough, or gets deep enough into their pockets, they’ll vote for new representation.
The Bulletproof Monk
on November 9th, 2009HIPPO’s are much worse, James.
Hypocrites
In the
Party
Practicing
Obstruction by
Presenting
Opposition
To
Any
Majorly
Unanimous
Solution
The Bulletproof Monk
on November 9th, 2009Kelley, here is a link that might cheer you:
http://www.bluecommonwealth.com/diary/1541/perriello-signed-his-own-political-termination-papers-tonight
Seems Perriello just lost “all” progressives and women (are they two separate groups exclusively? I can never keep it straight the exact definition of each assigned-seating protected official victim-group in that BIG BIG tent), money, volunteers, hugs and smiley faces by supporting Stupak.
Maybe looking forward to a repeat of what just happened…last week?
Barbara Munsey
on November 9th, 2009Monk, I don’t disagree with you regarding what happens when someone screws up bad enough, but it usually has to be something exceedingly bad – like getting sweetheart loans from the biggest subprime lender or getting busted with $90k in your freezer.
.
From a national perspective, we have got to be willing to allow some leeway for members to vote their district’s preferences, especially on votes that don’t matter. I could see holding Cao’s feet to the fire if this were final passage on the final bill. I could see flipping out if Olympia Snowe were to vote yes on a health insurance bill in final passage that includes a public option. But unless the chips are down, we have got to be willing to tolerate members protecting themselves. And the funny thing is, the folks who didn’t stay true to what was laid out in the Contract are generally the folks in the leadership and the committee chairmen, rarely the moderates. In a system based on seniority, it’s hard for those not in safe seats to make it into the leadership or become sufficiently senior to chair (or be ranking member of) a committee. Either they get beat or they annoy the leadership by breaking ranks to vote their districts.
.
Just this morning I read that Republicans in the Senate, and Joe Lieberman, all generally believe that the House bill is DOA in the Senate. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/obamacare_legislation_in_trouble_n12JvzOZLO36ngE5VaFVmI
.
That being said, as LL and others have stated, we can’t afford to rest on our laurels and we need to keep fighting. The real battleground here is the Senate and that’s where we need to be concentrating our energy.
Brian S
on November 9th, 2009Brian
You are becoming a cheerleader for dipshits. Enjoy the job.
G. Stone
on November 9th, 2009G.Stone, somebody has to be the rational one.
Brian S
on November 9th, 2009Your rational and my rational are vastly different, thus all the problems.
Loudoun Lady
on November 9th, 2009“Like I said, you have to pick your battles, and the battleground is the Senate, not the House.”
Here we agree. Now, on your way to the battle, ID those who report to be on your team and “rational ” as dipshits, so as to properly warn those in the upper house that you are on your way to the battle with a big stick. Advertise your our willingness to defend freedom, the constitution and patriots as opposed to making excuses for weak pols who on top of being political cowards, can’t decide what they want to be when they grow up.
G. Stone
on November 9th, 2009You think voting with the Democrats and risking the wrath of your leadership and conservatives is an act of political cowardice?
Brian S
on November 9th, 2009I agree on one point, Brian. The House vote is now spilt milk.(oh, the stupid MUST be punished, but that will come later….like 2010.)
The Senate is where we should have out heads.Let therse turds know in alarming numbers that they will be looking elsewhere for work should they, too, get stupid.
The Bulletproof Monk
on November 9th, 2009“You think voting with the Democrats and risking the wrath of your leadership and conservatives is an act of political cowardice?”
Brian, you have a point. I should substitute dumb as a bag of hammers. The part about them not knowing what they want to be when they grow up remains.
My point is, if you want to influence those in the upper house , you don’t complement and make excuses for the sole dingbat who voted contrary to your position. That is strange strategy indeed. Unless of course you actually hold a position similar to that of the sole dissenter, then it makes perfect sense.
G. Stone
on November 9th, 2009Brian, you make some arguments quite worthy of serious debate and you certainly do stick to your guns. However, as a conservative, I am getting more than a little tired of sharing my battlefield trench with a couple of rattlesnakes dressed in a uniform similar to mine — at least on the surface. You keep looking out across the battlefield, preparing to go up against the other side; and suddenly one of those rattlesnakes bites you in the ass. You’ve got to admit that this can become more than a bit wearying and distracting. There was a time when politics could be approached almost like a game of bridge in which you tallied up the numbers at the end, either rejoiced or moaned, and then went on to the next game. There was a time when I could look at a John F. Kennedy, a Scoop Jackson or a Hubert Humphrey and, after losing out to them, shrug it off and feel that we could work with them on many major issues pending the next electoral contest. Ain’t so much like that anymore. The cultural and political divides are much wider and deeper now and growing greater all the time. More often now I just want to turn around and stomp on those damned snakes before they go after my ass on issues of key importance to me. I hate like Hell having to always worry about my back when I’m engaged against those who are supposed to be a common foe.
Wolverine
on November 9th, 2009G. Stone, I don’t support the health insurance reform the House has drafted, nor do I support the one in the Senate. I do support the House Republican alternative, and I supported the Stupak amendment. I didn’t say I support Cao’s stance, I said I understood why he voted the way he did, and I can give him a pass for it. I was using his vote as a way of making a broader point about the party, rather than about health insurance reform.
.
Wolverine, I understand your point. But at the same time, I don’t think analogy holds. Politics at the federal level is less like being in the trenches and more like being in a collective security agreement. Think of it as NATO – yes, all the players agree to defend one another, and all of the players pledge to work together, but at the same time each one has their own separate interests that aren’t always going to be the same as the interests of their allies. Cao’s less like a rattlesnake biting you in the ass and more like Turkey not letting our troops land prior to the Iraq invasion. It was an inconvenience, but we still found another way to land the 4ID.
Brian S
on November 9th, 2009Brian, I spent almost 30 years treading the halls of federal government, I even have the proud distinction of one very prominent senator accusing me directly of prevaricating because I wouldn’t tell him what he wanted to hear for use in an investigative committee. And I had voted for him every time he ran!!
I do understand your comment about the “collective security agreement.” I’ve seen it in action many times. But I get the feeling that “ententes” and “collective security agreements” do not work so well as they once did in our current political environment. The issues have become much more sharp and divisive. If that rattlesnake keeps biting me in the ass at critical
moments in the fight over vital issues, I am naturally going to begin to
trust him less and less and eventually look for a more trustworthy ally.
I remember being absolutely pissed as Hell at McCain and Graham over the
amnesty issue. The Monk starting yelling at me that I had to cool off the jets and vote for McCain lest we wind up with Obama. There were some points to be made in his argument; but let me tell you. At the time McCain was making his and Bush’s pitch for amnesty, I (and the better half) were literally out on the dark streets of our community patroling in an effort to stop a gang invasion of our development. Nobody else had the guts to go out there and actually help law enforcement because, unlike us, none of them had ever had long years of working mean streets in a variety of places in the battle against international terrorism. So, we’re out on the streets running up against these people; and McCain is out there trying to tell me I should be kissing their asses instead because otherwise I might not be able to afford the price of lettuce. You don’t think I began to consider McCain to be one of those “rattlesnakes”? Talk about holding your nose in the voting booth! Anger, Brian. It plays a role these days. In truth, I consider Cao down in the Big Easy to be a side show. For me the trenches are now in Washington as well as Virginia. I can make some of the adjustments you suggest on a number of issues; but there comes a point when my boots start to twitch for a good stomping.
Wolverine
on November 9th, 2009Wolverine, I understand exactly what you mean, and I agree with you. The only point that I’ll make is that a lot of this needs to be on a case by case basis. Some guys deserve more of a pass than others.
Brian S
on November 9th, 2009Wolverine…in my defense, do you think McCain would be implementing the healthcare fiasco we’re dealing with? Do you think he would have waited two months to send a surge to Afghanistan? Is it remotely possible that he would have set up a website so Americans could “narc” on their fellow citizens?
How about traveling to the OIC to try to bid for the Olympics in Arizona?
This is but a partial list of all the screw ups McCain could have saved us.
Did I support his position on illegals? Hell no. But we’re about to move into that chapter with Obama in a few months, anyway. Given all of this in a mixer…who’d have served our overall interest better?
The Bulletproof Monk
on November 10th, 2009Monk you are correct. As wrong as McCain was on several issues he would have had to work double time to screw up at the same rate as Hopey Chanegy. Even if we reduced the cluster fox trots by 50% we would be well ahead on the screw up curve.
G. Stone
on November 10th, 2009Monk, you didn’t need to say anything in your defense. I told you I voted for him, even if I had to hold my nose doing it. I was describing my feelings then, Monk, my friend, at a time when my community was in deep trouble and I couldn’t bear the thought of having to share my foxhole with a couple of rotters like McCain and Graham. And I’m telling you. That was up close and personnel — out on the damned nighttime streets with my other plans for retirement blown to crud. Bush got a few choice words as well. Still don’t like McCain. You can bet your big yellow machine that, when Obama raises amnesty again, McCain and Graham will be right back shoveling the crap at us.
Wolverine
on November 10th, 2009The election has occurred, and our worst fears were realized. That’s the bad news. But it just turned support for McCain into water under that bridge.
And right now, there is good news. I think the brigade shoveling crap back at them is growing.
People that never get excited enough to do anything about the course are now awake. The specific good news is, they’re standing on our side.
The Bulletproof Monk
on November 11th, 2009Brian,
I agree with you on Cao. He’s only in the House now because his opponent was a criminal about to go to prison. He’s unlikely to win next year, and we’re lucky to have a guy in that district who would vote for republican leadership, much less anything else the republicans or conservatives want.
On the other hand, saying the Dems had “one more vote” because of NY-23 was foolish. Without Hoffman, DeDe MIGHT have won the election, or she may have been just as hated by the locals as it turned out she was with Hoffman running.
After all, the conservative party would have had SOMEONE on the ballot.
And DeDe supported health care reform, and not the limited reform you support. She would likely have voted against Stupak, and for the bill, to assert her “independence” (or to get back at conservatives for not supporting her).
And then the bill would have been even more “bipartisan”.
I don’t mind DeDe being gone even with a Dem, because DeDe wouldn’t have been a vote for anything I care about except guns, which there won’t be a close vote on anyway. But she still might have blocked a reasonable republican from winning next year. Now we’ll end up with a good candidate (not Hoffman) and the seat next year.
And in the meantime, we don’t have to put up with the term “BiPartisan” in front of health care, card check, repeal of DOMA, cap and trade, more stimulus, or any of the other disastrous democratic bills coming down the pike.
DeDe already demonstrated that, the first time the republican leadership actively tried to force her allegiance, she’d bolt to the other party who would “call her”.
charles
on November 11th, 2009