-
Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack
May 22, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Curl is Right: Don’t Dismiss Benghazi
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Good New Book: ‘Precipice’
May 19, 2013 | 1 comment
-
A Long Record of Obamite Thuggery
May 16, 2013 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Conservatives need to take a deep breath, relax, and stop bashing Joseph Cao. The man never claimed to be a fully committed economic conservative. He represents a district that is about 75 percent Democrat and 62 percent black (or thereabouts). He SAID ALL ALONG, FOR MONTHS, that he would probably vote for health care reform if it included strong pro-life language such as the Stupak Amendment. He stuck to his guns, even though his district is not majority pro-life. He is a traditionalist Catholic, former Jesuit seminarian, and he stands up for the principles he holds dear, one of which is the sanctity of innocent life. He is willing to lose his office on behalf of that pro-life stance. And he has taken a leadership role in anti-Communist measures, meeting with the Dalai Lama when Obama wouldn’t, and calling out the Vietnamese Communist government when too many these days refuse to recognize that Vietnam’s mostly free market does NOT mean it is a free society. He is a thoughtful, principled, well-intentioned public servant. He also represents a district that is fundamentally liberal. Congressmen have two roles: they are delegates, meaning their voters delegate to them the ability to use their judgment on complicated policy matters; and they are representatives, meaning they are there, specifically, to represent the will of their constituents. Serving in Congress is often a balancing act: When your district slightly favors one course of action but you strongly favor the opposite, you do what you believe and try to explain to your constituents why you bucked their wishes. That is being a delegate. But when you are ambivalent about an issue, even slightly against a course of action but only slightly, and your constituents STRONGLY favor the course of action, then your responsibility is to accurately reflect — to REPRESENT — the will of your constituents and vote in favor.
As Cao is no expert on things economic, and believes that something has to be done for the uninsured, and is neither convinced that the Pelosi bill is the right approach but ALSO not convinced that it is wrong, he then felt an obligation to act as a representative. There is no shame in that.
Meanwhile, note that Cao did not hold out for just some ridiculous pork project favored by big-money lobbyists; he instead asked for help with local issues caused by THE GREATEST NATURAL CATASTROPHE THAT EVER HIT THIS NATION. These are not roads to nowhere; they are health issues for a still-recovering population. Agree or disagree with his request, it is not outlandish.
Ronald Reagan understood that sometimes local issues prevail. He played the game brilliantly. Remember that to pass one of his big initiatives — either the Reagan-Kemp-Roth tax cut or the major Gramm-Latta spending cuts, I can’t remember which — it was Reagan’s willingness to horse-trade that led Democratic then-Rep. John Breaux of Louisiana to boast about some protection he got for the sugar cane industry. Asked if his vote had been for sale, Breaux cracked: “No, of course it isn’t for sale, but it is for rent!”
What Cao did was nowhere near as cynical as that; but conservatives loved it when Breaux did it, because it brought him to Reagan’s side on a key vote.
But again, ALL ALONG, for months, Cao had said his line in the sand was abortion financing, and openly said he would likely vote for a bill that blocked such financing. In short, he did the honorable thing by saying where he stood and sticking with it. No, of course I don’t like his vote. But give the man a break: He’s an honorable, incredibly hard-working, inspirational young representative who is doing his darnedest to do a good job in a district ordinarily incredibly hostile to conservatives and Republicans of all stripes.
More power to him.
View all comments (218) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/08/defending-cao
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 11.8.09 @ 1:21PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Defending Cao [spectato links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Catherine| 11.8.09 @ 1:22PM
Excellent defense of Rep. Cao. Amen to everything you said.
Hebert | 11.8.09 @ 11:04PM
Amen....except........The Federal Flood of New Orleans was the worst MAN-MADE DISASTER in US history. New Orleans dodged the bullet of Katrina which nailed St. Bernard Parish & Mississippi.
Check out the video The Katrina Myth on this
website http://levees.org/
Sandy MacHoots| 11.8.09 @ 1:32PM
I agree under the circumstances that it was a good move for Cao, and the GOP shouldn't make a big deal out of it. The bill was going to pass anyway, and a vote against it would have killed him in his district. He's far better than anyone else we'd ever be likely to get from that district.
Julia| 11.8.09 @ 5:52PM
While cao's district is liberal this vote DID kill him in it. He was elected in an off election running against a now convicted crook. All those who supported him in the past won't anymore, an those who didn't bother to vote wouldn't have voted for him in the first place. He just lost whatever support he had left.
Paul| 11.8.09 @ 11:12PM
Are Republican voters so thick that they would not turn out for a moderate Republican candidate or worse come at Cao from the right with another? If Republicans and conservatives give up on Cao they will not get this seat back for one hundred years.
More importantly, why turn your back on one of the finest and most hard working Representatives in Congress? August 29, 2005 ushered in a new day - we support quality in New Orleans.
donabernathy| 11.8.09 @ 10:18PM
not a tuff call since Mr. Cao replace Dollar Bill Jeffeson.
roflmao
Wow| 11.8.09 @ 1:36PM
dumbest post i have ever read on this site
i hope the government takes your healthcare first Quin
Gerald| 11.8.09 @ 2:25PM
It's funny how you can't even explain why you think this post is wrong. It's because you don't know what you're talking about.
john | 11.8.09 @ 10:07PM
I AGREE...dumb. Cho needs to go..
charles | 11.9.09 @ 3:28PM
I agree, CHO needs to go back and this blog needs to go with him..
Mousey| 11.8.09 @ 11:29PM
I agree... this is the dumbest post I've ever seen on a site. We need a Mr. Cao like we need a sharp stick in the eye.
Xdemo| 11.9.09 @ 6:26AM
What's "dumb" about Hilyer's post?
I'm in Cao's district, and I'm extremely disappointed with him. I certainly don't agree with Cao's sucking up to Obama. But Hilyer's post hit the nail on the head explaining Cao's mindset.
Would I be stupid enough to vote against Cao or stay at home when the alternative is to elect an ultra-lib, Afro-racist, Obama suck-up? Not me.
Oath of Office| 11.9.09 @ 11:17AM
Here's what's dumb - Hilyer says congressmen have two roles, delegate and representative. Funny, but neither role appears in the Federal Official Oath of Office. Under oath, the congressman swore to defend and uphold the Constitution.
Universal Health Care is not a constitutional right. Asserting federal supremacy over health care regulation offends the 10th Amendment. Forced participation in a health mandate violates the life, liberty and property rights protected by the 5th and 14th Amendments.
Hilyer's myopic view illustrates the failure to distinguish between pure democracy and democratic constitutional republic. But Hilyer is just a blogger. Cao is a public official who has now joined 215 in violating an oath. He is deserving of ridicule regardless of the make-up of his district.
Stunned and Bewildered| 11.8.09 @ 2:11PM
i own a small business. I will have to close if the House healthcare bill passes. If it passes because of fools like Cao, I will ask, you, Quin, to tell my employees we are done
NOOOO| 11.8.09 @ 11:01PM
It didn't pass because of Cao. It was passing with or without him.
Get a grip, at least now we have a small chance to keep a seat that would otherwise go to another Bill Jefferson.
And by the way, Cao voted against BOTH the stimulus and cap-and-trade.
Highlar| 11.9.09 @ 8:05AM
I have to agree with the above. The article here is a thoughtful look at why Cao voted the way he did. And, if you were watching the vote go down on FNC or elsewhere, you would have noticed that Cao voted YEA only AFTER the Democrats had reached 218. So his vote was not one of the ones that put them over the top. They were already there. Do I agree with how he voted? Hell no. But then again, I don't represent his district. Someone sent to Congress is not there to necessarily air their own views, but those of the majority of the people who voted them into office. If his district (being 75% Democrat, per the above) wanted him overwhelmingly to vote yet, then he had an obligation to his constituents to vote for this measure, as much as I disagree with his vote personally.
Constitutional Duty| 11.9.09 @ 11:23AM
Really? If 75% of his district demanded re-segregation of public schools in Louisiana, Cao is obligated to vote for that?
Hilyer says congressmen have two roles, delegate and representative. Funny, but neither role appears in the Federal Official Oath of Office. Under oath, the congressman swore to defend and uphold the Constitution.
Universal Health Care is not a constitutional right. Asserting federal supremacy over health care regulation offends the 10th Amendment. Forced participation in a health mandate violates the life, liberty and property rights protected by the 5th and 14th Amendments.
Hilyer's myopic view illustrates the failure to distinguish between pure democracy and democratic constitutional republic. But Hilyer is just a blogger. Cao is a public official who has now joined 215 in violating an oath. He is deserving of ridicule regardless of the make-up of his district.
Jeremy| 11.8.09 @ 2:22PM
It's amusing that extremists like you show your true ignorance by making idiotic statements about Rep. Joseph Cao's ethnicity, race, and religion. Using racial slurs makes you a coward. By the way, the man is CHRISTIAN and VIETNAMESE. Go back to your sandbox, you dolt.
Roy| 11.8.09 @ 2:34PM
Actually I think he should head back to the Daily Kos where he came from, and where he learned that kind of language.
Jeremy| 11.8.09 @ 7:17PM
It's rather pathetic to see conservatives try to blame liberals whenever conservatives act out. The Republican Party should be ashamed of itself when its members condone racist behavior like you're doing right now by trying to blame liberals for what obviously is a far right-wing attack.
Nick| 11.8.09 @ 7:43PM
Come on, Jeremy. Be a man and admit it was you who posted under truepatriot, you gutless troll.
Jeremy| 11.8.09 @ 9:57PM
Any more conspiracy theories you would like to share? You wingnut trolls are pathetic.
RickS| 11.8.09 @ 11:39PM
Jeremy, seriously. You know darn well that TruePatriot isn't for real. He's a DKoser just like you trying to give the false impression (yet again) that conservatives are racists, forgetting momentarily that it was his own people, the Democrats, who founded the Ku Klux Klan.
Aaron| 11.8.09 @ 2:42PM
We do need more God-loving Christians period, but your ignorance and racism demonstrate definitively that you are not one yourself. Disagree with Rep. Cao over his vote all you want, but keep your racist idiocy to yourself! The fact that you think you are a "TruePatriot" demonstrates how little you know about the true values of America and Christianity. I hope you are a troll trying to smear Christian conservatives, because I shudder to think that anyone could think as you write and actually call themselves a Christian or a conservative.
Ken| 11.8.09 @ 2:53PM
TruePatriot:
Your comments are neither patriotic, nor true, nor honorable.
By the way, I wonder how Christ would respond to you referring to a fellow believer as a "gook"?
*As for Cao's vote, I completely disagree with him, but I give him a pass since he wasn't the one who put it over the top and his vote's a long way from making this bill "bipartisan." If this monstrosity makes it out of the Senate, which is unlikely, the Stupak amendment will be gone, as will Cao's vote - and the votes of many other democrats.
DizziNY| 11.9.09 @ 1:17AM
Yeah, I have to agree with Ken, Jesus wouldn't condone TruePatriot, or anyone else for that matter, calling a Chinese person a "gook".
MattSwartz| 11.9.09 @ 2:27AM
I agree with the sentiment, but it's worth noting that Cao is Vietnamese, not Chinese. People from other Asian countries don't much like being called Chinese. It grates much the same, I imagine, as calling a Scotsman Irish would.
Right Rant | 11.8.09 @ 2:57PM
Thank you, liberal troll.
Gerald| 11.8.09 @ 3:02PM
I highly doubt it. I've seen similar ultra-conservative comments on other websites (just read some of the wall comments on Cao's Facebook page). Just ignorant name calling.
Shirley| 11.8.09 @ 4:02PM
Youre an idiot
Pingback| 11.8.09 @ 4:07PM
TwittLink - Your headlines on Twitter links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.8.09 @ 4:43PM
House Health Care Bill Passes; Democrats Celebrate Their Demise | Caffeinated Thought links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Adam Smith| 11.8.09 @ 5:42PM
More hate speech from liberal trolls to give them something to cite when "exposing conservative thought".
That anyone takes you seriously is a sign of the extensive brain washing in this country on the part of the left for decades.
Shag you ass back to the Daily Kos for the next strategy session with the rest of the facisitic, racist trolls. Give a shout out to Bertha too & maybe suggest something a bit more original here at AmSpec.
Our trolls are held to a higher quality standard.
Who's got some Lysol to get rid of the fetid Alinski stench?
Jeremy| 11.8.09 @ 7:22PM
I highly doubt all the ignorant comments being made here and elsewhere were written just by "liberal trolls". Stop making pathetic excuses for the extremist faction of the GOP. It's people like you who are killing the party.
victor| 11.8.09 @ 9:02PM
Hey, Jeremy,
Stop projecting your own thoughts on others.
These trolls are not in any way Conservative.
They are liberalterriers, much like yourself.
Jeremy| 11.8.09 @ 9:56PM
Coming from the guy who just spammed this entry with multiple posts. Talk about a hypocrite trying to project his thoughts on others.
RickS| 11.8.09 @ 11:43PM
Jeremy, Grab your white hood and get on back to DKos with your fellow Demokluckers. Grand Cyclops Robert Byrd is waiting for you. Silly Klucker.
Pingback| 11.8.09 @ 9:39PM
Giving That Lone Republican Supporting Health Reform A Pass : Post Politics: Politic links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
rtt| 11.8.09 @ 9:54PM
True Patriot, you are neither true nor a patriot. You are but another troll doing your best to smear those who honestly disagree with Mr. Cao.
I, for one, would like to know if Mr. Cao actually read the entire bill. If he did, he would not have voted in favor of it simply on the basis of the proposed cuts in Medicare, which will surely affect his voters adversely. And another question for Mr. Cao: Why are you calling the White House to inform them of your inclination to vote in favor of the bill? Another weak and ineffective voice in Congress.
joe nguyen| 11.11.09 @ 2:10AM
he did! go to youtube and check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsieAmgCbUE
Pingback| 11.8.09 @ 11:09PM
Instapundit » Blog Archive » QUIN HILYER: “Conservatives need to take a deep breath, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.9.09 @ 12:36AM
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Defending Cao | Insurance mesothelioma structur links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.9.09 @ 2:22AM
Fun Along The Road: American Tourist Attractions – Anot | Vocabulation links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Etiquette Man| 11.9.09 @ 6:26AM
It's a RED CARD for you, Moby!!!
Pack your gear, hit the showers, and take sock puppets with you.
It's great fun watching you leftist loons projecting your insanity onto actual Americans. Keep it comin'!!!
Ben Davidson| 11.9.09 @ 7:49AM
Best comment of the day....
Jeremy| 11.8.09 @ 2:17PM
A great post. Rep. Joseph Cao did the right thing for his constituents by voting for the healthcare bill.
victor| 11.8.09 @ 9:11PM
yes, of course, he did the right thing by promising them all government run health care.
The stated objective of most democrats is to extend Medicare for everyone.
Instead of telling his constituents that he will fight for getting rid of mandated health coverages such as: Athletic trainer, Circumcision, Hair prosthesis, Midwife, Naturopath, Oriental medicine, Pastoral counseling, Port wine stain elimination (birthmark removal), aromatherapy,
acupunture and tattoo removal.
Portability, flexible savings accounts and buying policies across state borders are far better goals.
And achievable and will cost far less.
Jeremy| 11.8.09 @ 10:03PM
Cao is a Republican elected from a predominantly DEMOCRATIC district. His constituents wanted the bill. Rep. Don Young (R-AK) and Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) even encouraged Cao to vote in his constituents' interests. Not so smart are you, Victor?
NOOOO| 11.8.09 @ 11:05PM
Also keep in mind that Cao waited till after the bill had passed. He surely had permission from Boehner, so long as he was not the deciding vote.
joe nguyen| 11.11.09 @ 2:14AM
he (and everyone) knew the bill was going to pass. so he promised boehner that he would wait until the dems clear 218. why? i can only guess that he did not want to embarrass the leadership.
Margie| 11.8.09 @ 2:36PM
It takes a certain level of maturity to recognize that you aren't going to get a perfect candidate or elected official. When the accusers of the ones who are mature enough to realize this fact of life, and to also realize that they themselves will never be perfect, perhaps then they will be able to vote for the best possible candidate and help to make a difference.
jharp| 11.8.09 @ 3:04PM
Wow. I'm stunned.
You get more GOPer's like Cao and you might start winning some elections.
Imagine. Congressman Cao ignoring the wingnuts and voting in the best interest of his constituents.
Good for you for recognizing this.
victor| 11.8.09 @ 9:12PM
Yes, of course, pander to democrats and promise them anything, but give them Free health Care.
JimP| 11.9.09 @ 10:23AM
Well, if you are for representatives listening to their constituents, you must be wondering why the Dems are ignoring the 72% of Americans who are opposed to this bill/Obamacare. Right?
Huh?| 11.8.09 @ 3:05PM
Yes, we need people in Congress like Cao, otherwise we might have a Dem voting for Obamacare...oh, wait, he voted for Obamacare. I forgot, it's better to have an R than a D even if they vote exactly the same way - as in national takeover of the health industry.
Yeah, those R socialists are so much better than D socialists.
Huh?| 11.8.09 @ 7:37PM
Those are some BIG WORDS you're using. Do you even know what socialism means? Doubt it.
victor| 11.8.09 @ 9:18PM
Socialism is where the State controls ownership and then gives the workers the ownership and control.
Kinda like Obama taking over th eauto companies and giving control of them to the unions, eh?
NOOOO| 11.8.09 @ 11:07PM
He voted against cap and trade and the stimulus.
When you can find someone better in LA-2 who can actually win, let us know.
Indentured Servant Girl | 11.8.09 @ 3:06PM
Remember...when you dance with the Devil, the Devil leads.
Jimmie | 11.8.09 @ 3:06PM
I'm not buying it, Quin. This vote was not some piddling little vote. It is, barely arguably, one of the two most important votes any member of Congress is likely to make over the next four years. Obamacare is an intrusion on personal freedom and an expansion of government the likes of which we have not seen since as least FDR (and it may just be bigger than anything FDR ever tried).
Being a member of the GOP has to mean something and if a GOP representative can not vote for limited government and personal freedom then they are completely misaligned with the very heart of the party. This isn't about perfection but about basic party ideology. If the GOP doesn't have at least one principle all its members will support, then it really isn't a political party at all.
If Cao really supported the largest expansion of government power since before World War II, then I'd argue that his running for election as a Republican was patently dishonest. I don't consider his vote principled at all.
Chelsea| 11.8.09 @ 7:35PM
Your reasoning is entirely dishonest. You claim the GOP is about limited government, and yet for 8 years under George Bush, the Republican-led federal government created the largest deficit in American history. In other words, government spending skyrocketed. Now some Republicans have suddenly changed their minds, and the only reason they're lashing out at Joseph Cao is because they can't admit to the fact that our party betrayed its principles a long time ago.
victor| 11.8.09 @ 9:32PM
Your knowledge of History is entirely dishonest as well. The Republican Party was started by men who believed in Free enterprise, free labor, Free land, that is, Free from slavery.
The Men who founded the party were Christians who abhored slavery and set about to abolish it.
They then turned into Radical Republicans who
battled the more moderate RINO's and demanded a more aggressive prosecution of the war, the faster end to slavery and total destruction of the Confederacy.
After the war they supported equal rights for freedmen (the newly freed slaves), such as measures ensuring the right to vote; passage of the Reconstruction Acts, and severe treatment of ex-Confederates.
This was an entirely moral party who only believed in doing the right thing at the right time.
Somewhere along the line, a day that will live in infamy, the party was hijacked by Rockefeller republicans who did not and still do not share our vision of a Conservative Republican Party.
We intend on getting it back and setting it back on its original course.
axon| 11.8.09 @ 9:57PM
Horrible job of rebutting her argument, victor. She's talking about recent history, not 50 or 100 years ago.
Blacque Jacques Shellacque| 11.8.09 @ 11:40PM
...and yet for 8 years under George Bush, the Republican-led federal government created the largest deficit in American history. In other words, government spending skyrocketed.
And there were scores of conservatives that bashed Bush and his Republican comrades that helped him, on that very point.
I say conservatives because these days, with all the RINOs in their ranks, one has to wonder just how "conservative" the Republican Party really is.
Steve| 11.9.09 @ 1:26AM
"You claim the GOP is about limited government, and yet for 8 years under George Bush, the Republican-led federal government created the largest deficit in American history."
It's not the largest in Federal history anymore, thanks to the Democrats. The people who voted against the GOP thinking they were standing up for fiscal repsonsibility now have egg on their faces.
Blacque Jacques Shellacque| 11.9.09 @ 3:25AM
It's not the largest in Federal history anymore, thanks to the Democrats.
Something else to keep in mind: In a fraction of the time it took Bush to run up a $400B deficit, Obie almost tripled that number.
thirteen28| 11.9.09 @ 9:53AM
Well said, Jimmie. Acquiescence to votes like this is why the federal government of this country has moved from a constitutional republic, to a huge welfare state, and continues to move towards full blown socialism. Hilyer's rush to defend Cao's "principled" vote completely loses sight of that.
LMD| 11.8.09 @ 3:07PM
There are certain red lines that you don't cross no matter what and remain a Republican. This health care bill is one of them. If Cao votes for something like this, he should become a Blue Dog Democrat or something of that sort because he is not a Republican. If Republicans don't stand united on something as fundamental as opposing this bill, they don't stand for anything. This bill takes away basic American freedoms and makes us all wards of the federal government. I'm not even the most conservative Republican and I can't believe so many of you are defending this guy. This bill is way, way, way beyond the pale.
rainbowseeker| 11.8.09 @ 3:10PM
I don't know the politics of his district or the people he represents, but he is a Republican....the party of less government, lower taxes and strong defense. Did his people not know this and what in Pelosi's healthcare bill could and should Republicans be supporting?
It increases taxes, was full of added on pork, endangers our freedoms and will burys our country in debt for years to come.
Abortion was an important part of the issue, but certainly only a small part. Meanwhile his own Republican party offered some excellent alternative measures that would have benefits for all the people he claims to support.
No...I sorry, but I find it hard to cut him much slack. While I can understand what he said he was going to do and why, I cannot agree with it no matter how many "poor liberals" he supposedly represents. IMHO he did them no favors, nor did he do his constitution, party or this country a service.
Jim Hlavac| 11.8.09 @ 3:13PM
Voting for the monstrosity of the health care bill is most decidedly not in the interests of Cao's constituents. It is directly opposed to the true interests, though it is in line with the hook, line and sinker imbedded in the public discourse to drag us to statism, but whatever name they use: Compassionate Conservative is just a Moderate Democrat, and what we get is more government, more taxes, more power in Washington -- how could this conceivably for any representative's constituents? No, Cao is Mao-esque in his jumping on the bandwagon that is heading off the cliff.
Skeeter Sanders | 11.8.09 @ 9:08PM
Jim Hlavac, your comment about Joseph Cao's constituents is an insult to their intelligence. Health-care reform is CLEARLY in the best interests of Cao's constituents, for many are poor and working-class Americans who simply cannot afford to bear the soaring cost of private health insurance any longer.
I can only wonder what you think about Cao's constituents, since a 65 percent majority of them are black and President Obama won that district -- which includes the Hurricane Katrina-ravaged Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans -- by an overwhelming 75 percent landslide.
Attacking Cao over his health-care vote won't help improve the Republican Party's rock-bottom standing with black voters -- nor with Latinos or Asians.
The GOP's reputation as a right-wing, lily-white party will only be further solidified with these unwarranted attacks on the party's ONLY Asian member of Congress.
victor| 11.8.09 @ 9:49PM
You sir, embody the mentality of the democrat party to a tee.
The poor and the blacks cannot and must not leave the plantation where you all can take care of them and protect them from the cold cruel world.
He should be telling his constituents that he will fight for getting rid of mandated health coverages such as: Athletic trainer, Circumcision, Hair prosthesis, Midwife, Naturopath, Oriental medicine, Pastoral counseling, Port wine stain elimination (birthmark removal), aromatherapy,
acupunture and tattoo removal.
Portability, flexible savings accounts and buying policies across state borders as you can do with car insurance, are far better goals.
And achievable and will cost far less.
These steps will help them and will help us.
axon| 11.8.09 @ 9:59PM
That's all been tried. Healthcare insures had their shot at controling costs and were terrible at it. Just added another layer of corporate buearocracy. This is the result.
Robert_Paulson| 11.8.09 @ 3:13PM
2:17 is so obviously a Moby that its like watching a Will Ferrell impersonation of GW Bush.
Here's the deal with Cao: he would have been with the Repubs if it meant defeating the bill. Once it was clear the bill was going to pass, he needed to side with it. New Orleans still doesn't have a fully functioning private hospital right now. All the focus on Cao is fuel for the leftist "Repub Civil War" meme.
Jimmie | 11.8.09 @ 3:22PM
Another thought occurs to me. If Cao really wanted to help his constituents, why not back any one of the GOP proposals that have been out there?
Why did Cao find it necessary, if his only motive was to help his constituents, to vote for the one plan that we know will kill jobs and cost his constituents more money while giving them less case? At least with one of t he GOP alternatives, his constituents would have been able to find something close to affordable health care and would have given some incentives for doctors to practice medicine.
Also, the notion that he would have been with the GOP if it meant defeating the bill is rubbish. To believe that I'd have to believe that his hesitancy to cast a hard vote is evidence that he would have been willing to cast a hard vote. That's nonsense on stilts.
JTD | 11.8.09 @ 3:39PM
Wait, I thought that Cao voted for Boehner's amendment, no (you can see it here by the NY Times -- http://politics.nytimes.com/co.....ouse/1/885)? I guess once he voted for that, then he was free to vote for his liberal constituency on the "regular" bill. I think not only was it in his conscience, but it was good politics at the same time. Win-win, right?
Spicy Joker| 11.8.09 @ 3:26PM
The American Sphincter has lower standards for Cao because it wants to keep a token minority in the Repubic coalition. If Cao were any other RINO - Lincoln Chafed, Olympia Snowjob, John McPain, Kay Bailout Hutchison - the American Sphincter would denounce him as a RINO.
victor| 11.8.09 @ 9:52PM
I just did, by saying he is pandering to his constituents. Most RINO like, don't you think?
Calling a spade a spade is very Conservative like, eh?
We wouldn't call it a dust pan, now would we?
Mary Louise| 11.8.09 @ 4:10PM
Even if, as Lindsay Graham states, Pelosi/Obamacare is DOA, there is no better time than now for the good, old-fashioned Protestant Ethic to prevail.
I don’t know if it’s possible, but if so, Doctors who are the complete opposite of Ezekiel Emanuel-his clinical, even ghoulish, understanding of medicine and healing- should band together and start up local businesses. Diagnostics, simple medical procedures, etc. Take no government money whatsoever. People who want to go to these doctors will have to pay for medical services received. Start small and stay small, but increase capacity and become a part of the community no one wants to lose. If they can get insurers to buy into to this, so much the better.
John Adams, who I’m really liking, was big on slapping down myths that followed in the wake of our American Revolution. He corresponded with the next generation of thinkers advising them not to idolize the fathers. And I mention this because if we stand any chance of thwarting this ownership of our person we have to learn to think anew. And do it post-haste.
I think Machiavelli is somewhat misunderstood. :)
He did appreciate liberty. He was no inveterate enemy of the Papacy, but he commended the Florentine Citizens, who in their struggle against the threat of excommunication, had “held love of their Native City higher than the fear for the salvation of their souls.”
We’re really not fit for revolution. We have no sub-structure similar to what existed during the time of the Founders on which to build. General will be against General. And each, even under duress, will have to conclude that he has to make the other side “howl!" so that order can be restored.
Have you listened to Petraeus? He’s witnessed too much to hold the view that we are where we are now because of Obama. Meanwhile, McChrystal is trying to bring order, and the capacity to flourish, to a land that one military official described as "like walking through the Old Testament." To these men, Obama must seem a footnote.
If we are to twart this total society they're getting ready to plan for us then we have to, as Adams advised students of the Revoution, look back decades with our historical telescope, analyze properly, act accordingly and resolutely.
rainbowseeker| 11.8.09 @ 4:10PM
Another brief comment...compassionate conservatism and the toleration of it is what got us into this mess. Either you are a conservative and support the party ideals or you are something else. Cao proved he is that something else - another moderate rhino. He sold us all including his people and his country out when he voted to support Pelosi's deathbill. The Republican party leaders have a good plan out there that Republicans can support that could benefit everyone. He choose to ignore it. IMHO it is that simple....NO not cutting him any slack! Done that, been there....and that is exactly what got us to this point in time! Time to stop making that mistake.
Martin| 11.8.09 @ 4:31PM
Rep. Jefferson did more good to the GOP by putting $90,000 in his freezer and exposing the Dems as corrupt than Cao will ever do. One-term Congressman. Good riddance.
DumbMartin| 11.8.09 @ 7:39PM
So you want a Demcrat to fill Lousiana's 2nd District? You truly are an imbecile.
JackieBinAZ| 11.8.09 @ 4:33PM
Liberals are stocking up on popcorn in anticipation of 2010. Keep it up!!! We're loving it!
rob| 11.8.09 @ 4:53PM
Cao was a fool. The Marxist hiding in the WH when is not playing golf played this moron like a cheap guitar. Cao has no chance being relected in a 80 % leftist Black district and there is not money comong his way. So he was a useful idiot to give the Marxist party a talking point for their Obama State media outlets . Why do all these Daily KOZ trolls seem think we need advice on this site?
The Marxists are going to be wiped out in 2010 so keep talking haters.
SandyC| 11.8.09 @ 5:19PM
If Mr. Cao was elected as a Republican, then that means there were enough people in his district to vote for a Republican, even if the district seems to be Liberal. Politics is local only in so far as City Council, Board of Supervisors and etc. When you elect a Representative or Senator, you must understand that at the Federal level, that person has every responsibility to vote for what is good for the country, rather than what is good for your little area in the world. Until people realize that who they send to Washington affects the nation, and, only looks at their districts needs, we will again have votes like Mr. Cao. He has now given a "bi-partisan" spin to the Liberals. Van Hollen this morning said that the Healthcare vote last night was "bi-partisan." Sorry, Mr. Cao, if he had conservativerepublican principles in his heart, he would not have been the only Republican to vote in favor of a bill that will destroy America. In that case, everyone needs to understand that local politics does not include Reps and Senators.
StevenS| 11.9.09 @ 1:21AM
Seems to be liberal?
Obama got 75% of the district's vote in 2008. In the 2006 House election, the Democrats got 85% of the vote. In the 2004 House election, the Democrat got 79% of the vote; Kerry got 75% of the Presidential vote. In the 2002 House Election, the Democrats got 87% of the vote. In the 2000 election, there wasn't even a non-Democrat who ran in the district, and it was the only district in Louisiana that Gore won.
That's how liberal the district is. This isn't a swing district. This is a district as liberal as they come.
Cao only won because 1) the Democrat was was under indictment for taking a $100,000 bribe from an FBI sting, and 2) because the Green Party candidate siphoned off enough Democratic votes. If the Green votes had gone to the Democrat, Cao would have lost to a criminal who had been caught red-handed.
Mr. Cao is not a conservative, no. But he is far, far to the right any other possible representative of the district. The choice is not Cao or a real Republican. It's not even Cao or a mainstream Democrat. It's Cao, or somebody to the left of Nancy Pelosi. It's Cao, or somebody who makes Ted Kennedy look moderate.
He voted no on the stimulus. He voted no on cap & trade. He votes no on abortion. He's as close to a conservative as will ever come out of that district.
joe nguyen| 11.11.09 @ 2:21AM
the third and most important reason cao won was because it was a special election due to hurricane gustav. the election was postone for a month and consequently only 60k+ voters turned out. he won by only more than 1000 votes. in a way, it was a fluke.
Jay Cagey| 11.8.09 @ 6:27PM
Cao waited until after the Dems had secured the necessary 218 votes before casting his vote. No matter how he voted, it would not have changed the outcome. But by voting for it, he gave the Democrats a tiny fig leaf they can hide behind. Many of them are already out there hailing the 'bi-partisan' support for this bill.
Had Cao voted against it, the Dems would have had to assume 100% of the responsibility for the effects of this bill. That would have made many of them hesitate to support it in the future votes that will take place.
As long as the Democrats insist on ramming awful and potentially devastating legislation through Congress, they must be forced to take full responsibility. By providing them with some cover, Cao has betrayed his party and its principles. Republicans now represent 0.45% of the supporting vote, but the party will get 50% of the blame - and that will encourage many fence-sitting Democrats to think they can get away with supporting Pelosi's health care deform.
I understand that he's in a difficult position. But his actions have helped an effort to make all our lives more difficult. I am not impressed.
Stan Redmond| 11.8.09 @ 7:42PM
Your premise is incorrect Quinn. The catastrophe in New Orleans was NOT the worst natural disaster in this nations history. This was a government made catastrophe. A city built next to the ocean, below sea level, in hurricane ally, full of welfare addicted people. What Cao accomplished was a HUGE MASSIVE win for Obama. Cao has single handedly approved the takeover of our very bodies by the federal government by showing that there is no party, the Republicans, that can stand for limited government. His one vote seriously limited any chance of preventing this disgusting bill from becoming law.
Pete2| 11.8.09 @ 8:57PM
Man, what stupid comments on here. Cao helped cut the throat of every tax paying American with his vote and he's lauded? He represents a 'liberal" district/ Does that mean if they support hanging blacks and burning Jews, then he should vote for that or risk losing his seat? This whole article is as idiotic as the reasoning behind supporting this bill. BTW, I don't give a damn what his race, ethnicity, or religion is, that is not what costs me money or my freedom...it's his vote, stupid. Don't pat the guy on the back,pillory him for his vote.
Chris Balsz| 11.8.09 @ 9:35PM
I agree Mr. Cao acted with sincerity and commitment to what he thought was right; that just means we condemn him for being sincerely wrong.
joe nguyen| 11.11.09 @ 2:22AM
so you are God now: you can judge people being right and wrong?
Rick| 11.8.09 @ 9:54PM
The government takeover of healthcare is one of the most important, if not THE most important, decisions any congressman has ever had to make. Cao gave it his support in a cynical attempt to get reelected. This vote was more important than his political career. I'll be sending my money to the conservative who challenges him in the primary, which is my right. If the people in his district don't vote for the new Republican in the general election, that's their right. There is almost no chance they will vote for Cao again either. He had a chance to make his one term in office count and he chose not to. He needs to return to the private sector so he can live under the nightmare he has (potentially) helped bring about.
DonnyLateNight| 11.8.09 @ 9:56PM
Cao did the pragmatic thing and I'm sure he had the consent of the GOP leadership. His vote on the bill was the SECOND TO LAST VOTE CAST and was done so only AFTER THE REQUIRED 218 HAD ALREADY BEEN CAST. His unofficial agreement with the GOP leadership was “if it comes down to my vote is needed to block the legislation, I’ll vote with the Republicans. If my vote will only be symbolic anyway, it would be politically expedient to vote for the bill.”
joe nguyen| 11.11.09 @ 2:25AM
you speculation is wrong. first, he doesn't need consent of anyone to vote for the bill because no one has the right to force a congressman to vote one way or the other.
second, cao knew the bill was going to pass. how? everyone knew this: pelosi would not bring the bill to a vote if she does not have enough vote. that would be a huge embarrassment.
lastly, imho, he waited because he did not want to cause more undue embarrassment to the gop leadership.
jb | 11.8.09 @ 9:56PM
Recommendation:
Read what you write before you hit the "send" key. Acting like fans at a high school football game hardly advances the political well-being of America.
Stupak did Cao a favor (which p'o'd several who griped to Nancy), but the Bammster pulled a quid pro quo with Cao--and Cao did not vote until 218 were already in favor. Hardly a statement of any kind.
His action yesterday does not speak well to the issue of integrity.
DonnyLateNight| 11.8.09 @ 9:56PM
Cao is from an extremely liberal district that had been a Democrat seat since 1891. He voted Conservatively on the Obama ‘stimulus’ and the Obama ‘Cap and Tax’ bill ( in which 8 repubs defected directly causing that disaster to pass) His district is very poor and 66percent black and purely symbolic ‘nea’ vote would have killed him with his constituents. I normally don’t like moves base on political expediency, but the GOP is lucky to have this seat anyway, and by the time he voted, THE BILL HAD ALREADY PASSED.
White Wolf| 11.8.09 @ 10:00PM
Cao is a left wing terrorist and shouldn't just be thrown out of the GOP - he should be thrown in prison with all the other neo-communist traitors.
Etiquette Man| 11.8.09 @ 10:03PM
Cao may have been representing his contituents, in which case he will probably get re-elected. Fair enough. He's another opportunist using "republican" as cover to get elected without actually being a Republican; in other words, he's a RINO. There are a lot of them about, and being a RINO is not a crime, but it is worth pointing out that he is what he is.
Why on earth would ANY conservative give him cover? I really don't understand why Mr. Hilyer is doing just that. This is consistent meme with Hillyer, and frankly I'm getting tired of having CINO's like Hilyer defend RINO's like Cao.
DM
donabernathy| 11.8.09 @ 10:06PM
Since Cao is my representative, I'd like to express my opinion and preface it by letting you know I am a life long democrat.
1. Mr. Cao doesn't represent my position on the issue. Then again most in government don't. All my position requires is a simple reading of the constitution. Then it becomes quite obvious that this government action is way beyond the purview of that simple document.
2. While Katrina was THE GREATEST NATURAL CATASTROPHE THAT EVER HIT THIS NATION. The damage that was caused to New Orleans, St. Bernard Parish and parts of Jefferson Parish was a MAN MADE Disaster that lays at the feet of the Army Corps of Engineers and corrupt politicians that have and continue to infect this area.
Brooke St John| 11.8.09 @ 10:06PM
Cao is a great guy, you bet...he will cost ALL of us the freedom and liberty we enjoy in the USA. May I add that his vote wasn't needed so why did he do it. No principle, NO principle. The country and the constitution come before his tiny distict. Disappointing and pathetic. Pray for us all.
Y.R.| 11.8.09 @ 10:06PM
People can choose to think what they will about Cao. To suggest otherwise, is foolish and self-absorbed.
My question to Cao and all of those that supported this catastrophe is; did you even read the bill?
If you read the bill, you were okay with giving lawyers a fortress of protection from tort reform from within our state level?
You are okay with raises taxes and levying fees, basically eating away at people's hard working salaries?
Do you realize it is only about 10 million or so who are truly uninsured?
Do you realize that this bill doesn't cover all of those "uninsured?"
You don't mind covering illegal aliens?
That others are forced to give up great care, while the WH and Congress continue to enjoy their superior care?
That any government run program crushes us into more debt and more bureaurocracy?
That there will indeed be "death panels?"
That the democrats and Obama have lied to the American people about this heinous "bill" from day one?
So, what? Cao gets off the hook because he doesn't believe in funding abortions? I'm sorry, there is MUCH more to get on Cao's case about, versus one in a zillion things wrong with this evil bill.
WhiteWolf| 11.8.09 @ 10:07PM
Get rid of Cao AND Hilyer.
RINOs and CINOs should be shown the exit.
catmman| 11.8.09 @ 10:10PM
Funny, but I read somewhere that Cao was voting HIS conscience, NOT the 'conscience' or in the best interest of his constituents.
And if Cao thinks that the Stupak Amendment STAYS in any iteration of this bill if it ever goes to conference, not only is he being disingenuous, he's naive as well.
joe nguyen| 11.11.09 @ 2:29AM
perhaps you may be the naive one: this is not the final bill. cao still can vote against the bill if and when if comes back after conference. by then, you can judge his naivety.
Cathy| 11.8.09 @ 10:22PM
This guy has turned an outrageous bill into a "bi-partisan" bill. He gave a lot of power to Pelosi and the gang. I am tired of people doing things that are bad for the country just to retain power.
gadfly | 11.8.09 @ 10:24PM
"He represents a district that is about 75 percent Democrat and 62 percent black (or thereabouts)."
You cannot have one without the other.
Unfortunately, the dire effect of the $2.5 trillion health bill will affect his constituents more than the average American, since urban blacks earn less than the general population. If this bill would really dramatically assist the present uninsured population, he might have an weak argument for his actions . . . but the tax bill will spend trillions, health care will be dramatically worse and we will soon find that the U.S is not too big to run out of money.
AAR| 11.8.09 @ 10:35PM
Voting for health care "reform" on the basis that it includes "strong" pro-life language is naive, foolish, and idiotic. The same can be said for the Catholic Bishops who were mislead into supporting the bill!
That language can be stripped from the bill at any time, including a House-Senate conference committee. Even if a final bill does by chance make it through with that language (unlikely considering the Liberal's demands), the bill can be amended later by the Democrat Congress (much easier to do than passing the basic bill). Just as likely, it can be unconstitutionally changed (de facto amended) by activist law-giver Liberal judges, chosen through "court and judge shopping" for that purpose.
If Cao is opposed to Communism and "has taken a leadership role in anti-Communist measures," then why didn't he demonstrate that "leadership" by working to stop the socialism and communism Obama and the Democrats are working so hard to impose and inflict on America!
Anyone who believes or trusts a Liberal is a fool!
AAR
White Wolf| 11.8.09 @ 11:35PM
Cao is an enabler of the left-wing communists who have taken over this country by illegitimate means.
He is a traitor to his party, and more importantly, his country.
Tish | 11.8.09 @ 10:47PM
The trouble is that Cao's constituents mostly wnat someone else to pay their way, so they can continue to sit on their porches and do nothing to help themselves.
White Wolf| 11.8.09 @ 11:34PM
Exactly. Of course we can't say the REAL reasons for this, due to the PC police.
PCP Smoker| 11.8.09 @ 11:00PM
More garbage from Quin, and as of lately a cut and paste of this particular sentence: "Conservatives need to take a deep breath, relax, and stop bashing [X]". X being the latest liberal republican in the news.
Chaos is a piece of garbage and you are a creep for defending him. I implore you to call David Frum and go join the bloggers at the "New Perversity"
Farmer Bob | 11.8.09 @ 11:00PM
Just as the Blue Dogs voted against the bill because people in their districts were against it, Rep Cao voted as his district wanted. This is a man I can trust.
White Wolf| 11.8.09 @ 11:34PM
Trust to vote the communist line you mean...
Athelstane| 11.8.09 @ 11:02PM
It's a horrible bill, of course. I pray it never becomes law.
But I give Cao a pass on this. Or at least I'm not going to waste much time criticizing him. He hasn't gone back on any promises. And if he's ambivalent on this - wrong as the bill is objectively - and the overwhelming majority of his constituents favor this, I can understand the vote.
Because he really has two choices at this point: vote for it, or vote against it and be absolutely assured of being a one term congressman. And people, Cao is the absolute best you are ever going to get out of that district.
Indeed, even with this vote he'll have a tough time being reelected.
Yes, he's almost certainly being naive about the pro-life restrictions being lifted out later in reconciliation. Well - if he is, he will have a chance to show his quality when it comes back up for a vote. If he still votes for it, then I'll lambaste him.
David| 11.8.09 @ 11:11PM
I understand your viewpoint,however he should remember he does represent the republican party not the democrat party.I do understand his position and why he voted the way he did.However if his vote was the deciding vote he should of voted with his party.Thats why I noticed he did wait untill 218 was reached before he voted.He did have a tough choice.I commend him for waiting untill he knew it would not pass the bill or not pass it.I really think if it came down to him,and his vote only he would of voted no.
axon| 11.8.09 @ 11:27PM
Representing his constituents comes before towing (toeing?) the party line. If he honestly thinks voting this way was the best thing for the people he represents then he did his job.
White Wolf| 11.8.09 @ 11:33PM
Stop making excuses for this left wing appeaser.
He's one GOP member I won't miss. And he's such a wimpy guy too.
White Wolf| 11.8.09 @ 11:32PM
Ironic -- Cao fled communism and has now become one himself.
Leave the GOP, Chaos -- and take socialists Lindsey Graham and McCain with you. RINOS have no place in Congress, they should all be kicked out.
Jack| 11.8.09 @ 11:39PM
It does not really matter which way Rep Cao voted. He is a one term wonder as almost any black Democrat supporting the lifelong parasites in New Orleans or Baton Rouge will win the next election for that seat. Just ask Mary Landrieu.
Yosemeti Sam| 11.8.09 @ 11:47PM
Second oldest profession - political practitioners - inspired by the oldest professions' MO of give and take.
Question is - will Cao get what he 'paid' for.
Or will he get screwed.
LOL.
Dred| 11.8.09 @ 11:59PM
What he did is what lost his home country of Vietnam.
joan| 11.8.09 @ 11:59PM
Weak, lame article.
So his moocher and looter constituency wants even more gov goodies? So his voters want to rob even more of their neighbors earnings?
And he thinks this is just peachy?
It is wrong. And he knows it.
The left has created a class of citizens who live off the gov, work for the gov, benefit from gov grants, and IT IS WRONG.
And Cao is aiding and abetting them.
Asian conservative| 11.9.09 @ 12:04AM
Cao might be a respectable conservative, but he was wrong to support a healthcare scheme that will take us one step closer to socialized medicine. Jesus never once endorsed unaccountable welfare and spending in the name of charity.
Does Cao actually believe that the democrats won't find some other way for the government to use tax payer money to fund abortion?
JeremyR| 11.9.09 @ 12:06AM
What is the point of having a "Republican" in congress, if he doesn't vote against something like this? Just for show? Is there a bigger issue? Ever, really.
And I really don't think this bill helps anyone. The poor will be getting screwed by this just as much as the rest of the country (excluding government bureaucrats and politicians).
Forcing people to buy insurance or go to jail will basically make criminals of a lot of poor. Sure, there will be subsidies for them. But what about those that refuse? There are a lot of proud poor people, not all of us want a handout. It's going to make it impossible for us to pay for our own healthcare.
And that's ignoring stuff like the job creation issue (hurting small businesses)
Brian| 11.9.09 @ 12:32AM
What's hilarious is that any ban on federal funding for abortion is going to be stripped when the two chambers reconcile the bills, assuming the Senate passes their version of Obamacare. Cao just got played. He'll be the Dems' favorite useful idiot Republican and will make the usual media rounds and give talking points on how the "far right" has taken over the GOP and "obstructing" Obama's agenda. When 2010 rolls around, he'll be ass-out on the street. Also Cao voted against the stimulus only because it didn't contain enough pork for NOLA. I don't care what race or ethnicity Cao is, if he's not a conservative he shouldn't be supported.
Steven | 11.9.09 @ 12:39AM
Sure, he's a representative and a delegate, but neither of those roles gives him the right to vote for a bill that violates the Constitution. His oath of office binds him to support and defend the Constitution, not to be an effective delegate or representative.
You, like the Congressman and most of his colleagues, have forgotten the basic purpose for his being sent to Washington in the first place.
EconRob| 11.9.09 @ 12:40AM
Pointing out the district is mostly black is sad. Does this mean that to win the black vote you have do create a huge nanny state? Why are blacks so dependent on people that want them to depend on government?
Beth| 11.9.09 @ 12:42AM
"What is the point of having a "Republican" in congress, if he doesn't vote against something like this?"
The 2nd district didn't elect him to have a Republican in Congress. He can't win there as a doctrinaire Republican. He wouldn't BE a Republican if it weren't for abortion - the man's a social justice Catholic, and a community organizer.
Deable| 11.9.09 @ 12:44AM
Well - You are too foolish to refute...
If you believe what you wrote - well, you are lost along with the rest of America. Me, I will stand and fight!
EconRob| 11.9.09 @ 12:45AM
One more point on when are blacks going to stand on their own two feet. In college admissions whites have to score a lot better than blacks and asians have to score way, way better than blacks. Is this because blacks can't score well or do not do the work. I suggest the latter. Why bust your butt and study all the time when you know you get a pass. I could see socio-economic AA, maybe, but pure racial preferences are disgusting.
Deagle| 11.9.09 @ 12:46AM
Oh - and tho I use to subscribe to your publication - not only would I never again - I am glad that my subscription expired.
The Whited Sepulchre | 11.9.09 @ 12:54AM
Just because a district is 62% black, doesn't mean that they're 100% dumb, and that sounds like what you're implying.
This is one of the worst essays I've ever read in Am Spectator.
Real American| 11.9.09 @ 12:56AM
Every member of Congress should be REAMED up the youknowwhat for voting on this totalitarian health care bill. It is atrocious and will do ZERO of the things its backers say it will: It will raise costs and reduce quality. It is anti-freedom and anti-taxpayer. It will result in millions of Americans losing the health care that they are content with. That's what Cao voted for. Forget politics. He voted for F the people of his district in the A. What an A-hole!
pelicans| 11.9.09 @ 1:07AM
I am from New Orleans and I'm afraid that my perceptions of Cao differ from yours. When he beat Jefferson with the support of a coalition of conservatives, moderates and good government folks, I felt that he represented a notable advancement for our city, someone who had overcome the status quo. It seemed that most of the conservatives who supported him did so with that understanding. This was an unusual, trusting group. And, yet, from the very beginning, there were things that didn't seem quite right. It was reported locally that he was going to move the whole family to DC in spite of the fact that he was, apparently, advised not to clear out the "sticks" right away. He started saying things that didn't quite sound as they had before. Sure, he can see it's a liberal district but the people who sent him to Washington are the ones who supported him, not the liberals. When he comes up again, what will his base be? Who will be committed to his reelection? Let me just say that all lot of people are going to have to do some soul searching before supporting him next time.
joe nguyen| 11.11.09 @ 2:35AM
what would jesus do? your jesus seems to be a republican.
joe nguyen| 11.11.09 @ 2:38AM
(the comment about jesus was meant as a reply to another post, sorry.)
as for this post: cao's family is still living in new orleans. i am not sure where you got the information that he has moved.
as for his reelection, cao understands that he is extremely vulnerable. i am doubtful that he will be reelected. but who knows.
Steve| 11.9.09 @ 1:13AM
"The man never claimed to be a fully committed economic conservative."
He's not ANY sort of conservative. He's an immigration lawyer committed to open borders. He voted to rebuke Joe Wlson. He voted for the spendulus bill. He voted for S-CHIP. He'll jump ship to the Dems at some stage assuming he stays in Congress any length of time. He's Dede with an Asian face.
MattSwartz | 11.9.09 @ 2:35AM
He's pro-life, you fool!
And his vote didn't change anything except to improve his re-election chances. Cao is, by all accounts, a good man who wants to do the right thing. He got this one wrong, but only a hateful maniac would purge him ahead of these people needs their heads examined:
Senate
* Susan Collins Maine
[edit] House
* Mary Bono Mack California
* Chris Shays Connecticut - (Defeated in the 2008 election.)
* Mike Castle Delaware
* Mark Kirk Illinois
* Judy Biggert Illinois
* Lynn Jenkins Kansas
* Rodney Frelinghuysen New Jersey
* Charlie Dent Pennsylvania
* Shelley Moore Capito West Virginia
Yes, those are pro-abortion Republicans, and no, there isn't any outrage.
joe nguyen| 11.11.09 @ 2:40AM
he voted for the spendulus bill? really?
how can he be a dede if dede never won?
burt| 11.9.09 @ 1:30AM
Please the entire Cao event has been blown out of proportion by the Obama media which is trying to hide the fact it was the Dems in chaos, 38 Dems voted NO , and they could barely passed a bill while hiding from the public on a Sat nite. If the ONN (Obama News Network , aka CNN) does your profile its to spin and IGNORE the real story which are the Dems are in big trouble ! Cao was a useful idiot for the Marxists in the WH and is doomed to lose in a 70 % Dem district.
Steve| 11.9.09 @ 1:32AM
"What Cao did was nowhere near as cynical as that; but conservatives loved it when Breaux did it, because it brought him to Reagan's side on a key vote."
What Cao did brought him to Obama's side on a key vote. We appreciate Dems joining us, we don't appreciate it when our people join the Dems.
Or would you recommend Cao's course of action to the rest of the GOP?
caseoftheblues| 11.9.09 @ 8:17AM
While it all sounds so good in this article....ANY congressman that either can't understand or doesn't bother to understand what this bill is and does and that voted for this horrible, anti-American, economy destroying, way of life destroying, Government deciding who lives and dies, piece of garbage bill is rightly attacked and is not fit to serve...regardless of party affiliation...END OF STORY!
Crusader| 11.9.09 @ 8:42AM
Why am I not surprised to find "conservative" editorialists at an alleged "conservative" website defend this Benedict Arnold. Or maybe Amspec is the "big tent conservative" website?
Yes yes yes by all means we should forgive Mr Cao for voting yes to a bill that effectively hands control of 16% of the GDP to the gubmint.
You'd think Republicans would learn. I sear you can beat a Republican over the head with SMALL GOVERNMENT but they'll be like Quin, who can actually defend socialism as long as a Republican has a good reason for doing it. Wow. Like someone else said, the old argument of "We need a Republican in office" is not working anymore when Republicans vote like Dems anyway. What don't you get about that?
Maybe if Mr Cao held a town hall and explained the benefits of personal and economic liberty to his constituents he could get them to see that being American doesn't mean taking handouts from the gubmint. But that would be hard, right Quin? And voting like a Dem is easy, but good, as long as you are a Republican.
Roux| 11.9.09 @ 9:57AM
Cao is a former Jesuit Priest... he should begin praying now because he just made a deal with the devil.... AKA.. Obama, Pelosi and Reid.
Abortion will be paid for in the final bill. You'd think that Cao would be smarter than that.
White Wolf| 11.9.09 @ 10:12AM
Why am I paying good money to read an appeaser like Quin Hillyer?
Get rid of this traitor or I will cancel my subscription.
walt nenen| 11.9.09 @ 10:12AM
Bunch of idiots, starting with Cao and ending with you liberals!
Calvin Dodge| 11.9.09 @ 10:12AM
I can understand his desire to stay in office. But I predict that no matter what he votes for, he'll lose his re-election bid (just like the Republican who beat Dan Rostenkowski).
JimP| 11.9.09 @ 10:26AM
Some one fill me in please. I read that Cao and Bill Owens' (NY23) votes could have blocked the bill. True or not? Cao being an 'R' and Owens being against Obamacare before he got elected.
Andy| 11.9.09 @ 10:28AM
OK he voted the way his district wanted,sure I buy that crap.So get him off the republican ticket next time because he is a democrat.I did notice however to give him some credit,he waited untill after the vote hit 218 making sure his vote would not be the decider.That makes me wonder if it would of bein the deciding vote if he would of said no?We will never know but he did wait,so that says alot.
rt| 11.9.09 @ 10:30AM
If Rep Cao had any self respect he should change parties. If there are 75% Dems in his district then why be a Republican? Quinn, you're missing the whole point. Cao should change to a Dem if he is to represent his constituents. End of story NO MO RINOS!
Pingback| 11.9.09 @ 10:31AM
Southern Appeal » On Representation links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.9.09 @ 10:53AM
On Representation | The Cranky Conservative links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
JIMV| 11.9.09 @ 11:15AM
NY 23 was about getting rid of a RINO to preserve the party. The same needs to be done with Cao. When a politician votes with the anti-Americans to preserve his seat, he forfeits his claims to that party.
As always, I would rather have an honest dem than a treacherous RINO in office.
datechguy | 11.9.09 @ 11:43AM
There is a Huge difference between Dede and Cao both in voting records and in the district.
Lets say by some Miracle that another Republican manages to get 20% of the black vote in the district that means that the remaining black vote represents 50% of the district!
Cho's had a principled stand on Abortion and stood by it. He is MUCH farther to the right than Dede and has given the media fits because they don't want to lionize a pro-life republican.
I'll take Cho over Jefferson any day of the week.
Pingback| 11.9.09 @ 11:46AM
Morning Joe Cho Abortion position? What Abortion position? « DaTechguy's Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Oldefarte| 11.9.09 @ 12:19PM
BULL-EXCREMENT! Nothing personal against Cao, but this bill is, was and forever will be WELFARE [and the fact that he voted for same makes his actions even more dispicable and deplorable]. There is not moral justification for voting for this legislation which will adversily effect millions if inacted. His disagreement over Federal funding of abortions is no excuse either, since a woman can obtain funding for an abortion from private sources if absolutely necessary. Cao represents the entire state of Louisiana, not just his New Orleans district; and because of same, has a moral obligation to vote according to population of that state's wishes. If memory serves me, not even Mary Landrieu [Democrat-Senator] is in favor of this bill/legislation; and certainly not Republican David Vitter either. Quin, there are simply NO EXCUSES for Cao's being BRIBED [similar to 'Dollar' Bill Jefferson who Cao replaced/defeated] by Obama/Pilosi/Democrats into his treasonous caving in to their socialist/welfare leglative demands!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hitnrun| 11.9.09 @ 12:21PM
I don't understand the hate over Cao. His vote was unimportant (because he waited until 218 to give it) and absolutely necessary to maintaining his seat, which is arguably the most Democratic in the country. Would the GOP rather have the next Cold Cash Jefferson voting from his district?
Oldefarte| 11.10.09 @ 11:21AM
You obviously are MISSING THE POINT. Cao needs to switch to the Democratic Party. His being bought by Obama [so that the DNC can push Cao in front of cameras as a 'Republican' voting for Obamacare] is demeaning to the RNC. He is being uses as a pawn by liberal Democrats, and he is [in his treasonous actions] just as guilty as Dede Scarafavva in NY23 who [after resigning] endorsed the Democratic candidate over Hoffman, the Republican. With Republicans [FRIENDS] like Cao, who needs ENEMIES??????
jh | 11.9.09 @ 12:59PM
Thank you Mr Hillyer
You seem to get it. CAO, who I like though I disagree with on some issues, is the best thing conservatives can get in that district. At least he is open. I think to be honest the powerful issues of abortion not only caught some liberals by suprise but many conservatives
jh | 11.9.09 @ 1:01PM
"Cao is a former Jesuit Priest"
That is incorrect ROUX. He went to seminary but was never ordained
Pingback| 11.9.09 @ 1:43PM
Blog Your Site | American Tourists Hit by Card Fraud Prevention links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Chromehawk| 11.9.09 @ 2:08PM
But when you are ambivalent about an issue, even slightly against a course of action but only slightly, and your constituents STRONGLY favor the course of action, then your responsibility is to accurately reflect -- to REPRESENT -- the will of your constituents and vote in favor.
I agree with that statement ... though I would have to make sure you apply the obverse too.
If your constituents OPPOSE the legislation ... even if you personally favor it ... why the hell are you casting a vote FOR it? Cause Pelosi twisted your arm? Cause you owe it to ALL Americans to ignore the WILL of your constituents? To show Leadership?
A good example of that is ... the majority in California passed definition of Marriage ... AND the reaffirmed it with Prop 8.
So what are the elected officials doing? Trying to over-ride the WILL of their constituents.
You do not get it both ways bud.
And I suspect in MANY of the districts of the Democrats who voted FOR Healthcare ... the majority OPPOSED it.
JB| 11.9.09 @ 5:06PM
Want to know why Rahm Emanuel is chief of staff at the White House right now? Two reasons: 1) He and Obama are, of course, from Chicago. But 2), and more importantly, Emanuel distinguished himself in the Democratic Party by engineering the takeover of the House in 2006. How did he do this? He took advantage of a decidedly Bush-weary electorate by running candidates on the Democratic ticket in red states that were just conservative enough to ride the anti-Bush wave to win. These are the people we call Blue Dogs now. Emanuel understood that he couldn't build a functioning majority by running only true-blue liberals in every election. This position has infuriated the Leftist loon base, as seen at places like Kos and HuffPo. But while the Blue Dogs continue to cheese off the Dem base, the sensible ones understand that there would be no Speaker Pelosi -- and thus, no Obamacare of any kind -- without the Blue Dogs. In the same vein, Republicans need to realize that there are House districts out there that a rockribbed RedState conservative cannot win. (NY-23, for instance.) In these districts, you must find candidates that agree with the orthodox conservative positions on most issues. If you do, you will be able to reclaim the House. Choose to follow a stricter path of ideological purity, and we will find ourselves in the minority forever. Leave Cao alone. I suspect that after 2010 you won't have him to kick around anymore, anyway.
JB| 11.9.09 @ 5:14PM
Oh, and to those who I know will respond by calling me an "appeaser" and a "traitor" understand that I am writing from the middle of Blue State Hell, also known as Illinois. I suspect that those of you who don't get what Hilyer is trying to say are from solid red states where all of your neighbors agree that Obama is the AntiChrist. As for me, I understand that to get a conservative into the speaker's chair, you will need Republicans from blue states. And those Republicans, like as not, are not going to agree with you on everything. I know that by definition makes them "traitors" (since your opinions are the measuring rod of Americanism) but you cannot win in Washington if you are not in the majority. Understand this principle, or enjoy spitting into the wind for the rest of your life.
Oldefarte| 11.10.09 @ 11:12AM
Cao may be the 'anti Christ' but HELL WILL FREEZE OVER before he gets into the'speaker's chair'!!!!!
Pingback| 11.9.09 @ 5:16PM
Cao Goes Rogue on Health Care! Will Conservatives Make Him Pay? | Christopher Howell links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.9.09 @ 5:18PM
Cao Goes Rogue on Health Care! Will Conservatives Make Him Pay? | Christopher Howell links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Chester White| 11.9.09 @ 6:49PM
Bullcrap. Screw Cao. Cut him off from all GOP support immediately.
He's not going to win re-election in that district anyway. It will inevitably go Donk next time.
Make a strong EXAMPLE out of him, to discourage OTHER Republicans from emulating his despicable action.
Anna| 11.9.09 @ 8:33PM
I am so sick and tired of bashing people for following their district's wants. Cao is in a consistently Democratic district who wants Healthcare Reform. He did what he was elected to do.
The Constitution of the United States declares: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Bill of Rights states citizens of the US the have the rights to life, liberty or property...
By denying the citizens of this country e affordablhealthcare our representatives are not abiding by the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
Nick| 11.9.09 @ 9:05PM
I see you got your degree in Con Law from a box of Cracker Jack, huh?
Oldefarte| 11.10.09 @ 11:08AM
Yea, previously and historically, the people in his district looked the other way with Dollar-Bill's stuffin' bribery money in a freezer also-----says a lot for his constituents, as well !!!!
Mark M.| 11.9.09 @ 9:58PM
I don't care *why* he's a fool or *why* he doesn't understand basic economics. He voted for it, so screw him. Tough times demand rough justice. Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
long| 11.10.09 @ 2:32AM
wholesale nike shoes
wholesale shoes
Pingback| 11.19.09 @ 6:36AM
Booned — Blog — The American Spectator : Amspecblog : Defending Cao links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 12.3.09 @ 12:16AM
credit repair me, on credit repair me, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
pigment Red | 4.6.10 @ 3:21AM
pigment Red
czmaxpct@gmail.com
Never frown, Ink Pigments
even when you are sad,Organic Pigments because you never know who is falling in love with your smile.
dfgdufjgdj | 7.19.10 @ 11:48PM
nike chaussures,