-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
I’ve done an analysis of Saturday’s roll call votes, and I’ve found that there were 42 members of the House who voted both in favor of the Stupak amendment to bar taxpayer funding for abortions and in favor of the main bill. The reason why I’ve focused on these members is that clearly, Speaker Nancy Pelosi couldn’t have won passage of health care legislation had the House not adopted pro-life language. The names below are all of those who voted in favor of both measures, with an asterik next to those who were considered undecided on the morning of the vote. To be clear, many of these members would have supported the health care bill no matter what. However, given the 220-215 vote margin on Saturday night’s vote, what it means is that if the pro-life language is stripped from the bill during negotiations with the Senate, if Pelosi loses the support of any three of these people below as a result — without picking up anybody else’s support — the bill cannot pass the House.
Joe Baca
Marion Berry*
Sanford Bishop
Dennis Cardoza*
Chris Carney*
Jim Cooper*
Jim Costa*
Joseph Cao*
Jerry Costello
Henry Cuellar*
Kathy Dahlkemper
Joe Donnelly*
Mike Doyle
Steve Driehaus*
Brad Ellsworth*
Bob Etheridge*
Baron Hill
Paul Kanjorski*
Marcy Kaptur*
Dale Kildee
Jim Langevin
Daniel Lipinski
Stephen Lynch
Michael Michaud*
Alan Mollohan
John Murtha
Richard Neal
James Oberstar
David Obey
Solomon Ortiz
Tom Perriello*
Earl Pomeroy
Nick Rahall
Silvestre Reyes
Ciro Rodriguez*
Tim Ryan
John Salazar
Vic Synder
Zack Space*
John Spratt
Bart Stupak*
Charles Wilson
View all comments (38) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/08/members-to-watch
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 @ 1:38AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Members to Watch [spect links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
VideoSavant| 11.8.09 @ 9:19AM
But I think a key indicator here is whether there were any Democrats who voted against the overall bill due to the insertion of the pro-life Stupak amendment.
Were there any?
Oldefarte| 11.8.09 @ 10:07AM
AS's readers/voters in each of these representatives districts should target and promote their DEFEAT whenever they come up for re-election!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oldefarte| 11.8.09 @ 11:01AM
Here's some #'s for future benefit, if any:
AK Artur Davis 202-225-2665
AL Parker Griffith 202-225-4801
AR Marion Berry 202-225-4076
AZ Raul Grijalva 202-225-2435
AZ Harry Mitchell 202-225-2190
CA Sam Farr 202-225-2861
CA Dennis Cardoza 202-225-6131
CO Jared Polis 202-225-2161
CO John Salazar 202-225-4761
CO Betsy Markey 202-225-4676
GA Jim Marshall 202-225-6531
IA Leanard Boswell 202-225-3806
ID Awalt Minnick 202-225-6611
IL Melissa Bean 202-225-3711
IL Bill Foster 202-225-2976
ILD aniel Lipinski 202-225-5701
IN Baron Hill 202-225-5315
KS Dennis Moore 202-225-2865
MD Frank Kratovil 202-225-5311
MI Dale Kildee 202-225-3611
MI Mark Schauer 202-225-6276
MI Bart Stupak 202-225-4735
MN Collin Peterson 202-225-2165
MN Jim Oberstar 202-225-6211
MO Ike Skelton 202-225-2876
MS Gene Taylor 202-225-5772
NC G.K. Butterfield 202-225-3101
NC Brad Miller 202-225-3032
NC Bob Etheridge 202-225-4531
NC Heath Shuler 202-225-6401
ND Earl Pomeroy 202-225-2611
NM Harry Teague 202-225-2365
NY Yvette Clarke 202-225-6231
NY Eric Massa 202-225-3161
OH Marcy Kaptur 202-225-4146
OH John Boccieri 202-225-3876
OH Dennis Kucinich 202-225-5871
OH Zack Space 202-225-6265
PA Kathy Dahlkemper 202-225-5406
RI Jim Langevin 202-225-2735
SD Stephanie Herseth Sandlin 202-225-2801
TN Steve Cohen 202-225-3265
TN Lincoln Davis 202-225-6831
TN Bart Gordon 202-225-4231
TX Chet Edwards 202-225-6105
UT Jim Matheson 202-225-3011
VA Gerry Connolly 202-225-1492
VA Tom Perriello 202-225-4711
VA Rick Boucher 202-225-3861
VT Peter Welch 202-225-4115
WA Brian Baird 202-225-3536
WI Steve Kagen 202-225-5665
WI Ron Kind 202-225-5506
Joseph Cao (Louisiana Republican) 202-225-6636 504-483-2325
Tim Williams | 11.8.09 @ 11:05AM
I would have to think Bart Stupak is a pretty good bet to oppose a future version with abortion funding re-inserted.
jharp| 11.8.09 @ 11:43AM
"However, given the 220-215 vote margin on Saturday night's vote, what it means is that if the pro-life language is stripped from the bill during negotiations with the Senate, if Pelosi loses the support of any three of these people below as a result -- without picking up anybody else's support -- the bill cannot pass the House."
I hate to burst your bubble, actually not really, but this is nonsense.
Once Pelosi knew she had the votes cleared the way for the red state dems to vote no.
It's over. A truly historic day. Praise Obama and Pelosi.
JP| 11.8.09 @ 1:19PM
Jharp,
You are correct. Unless the Senate totally rewrites the thing, the bill will not come back to the House for a revote. Stupak knew what he was doing. The Senate will remove the abortion language, and there is nothing conservatives can do about it. The so-called Blue Dogs and conservative Dems pulled a brilliant bait and switch. The House essientially did thier part; unless there is a Senate fillibuster, this bill is a done deal. Pelosi has no intentions of writing a new bill. She brilliantly put the onus on Reid and his Dems. The trick now is to get a)60 Senators to break a fillibuster or use the nuclear option. Reid will do whatever it takes, and Obama will have a bill on his desk before the end of December.
The conservatives must now organize and use the 2010 elections to rescind this travesty. Once people get thier new tax bills and premium fees (over $12000 for couples making $100,000 a year) they will be aghast. The conservatives must make every Blue Dog and Moderate Dem pay for this bit of political deception.
Perhaps Lieberman and co could force Baccus to remove the Public Option; in that case, Pelosi will demand the bill gets returned to the House for a re-vote. Fat Chance.
jharp| 11.8.09 @ 11:47AM
Oh, and many thanks to any teabaggers out there for the yes vote out of NY 23.
We couldn't have done it without you.
Jim Treacher | 11.9.09 @ 3:25AM
Like Scozzafava would've voted Nay. She called a cop on the guy who dared to her about it, genius.
somnolence| 11.8.09 @ 12:15PM
What is largely missing in the current commerce of the U.S. is participation of the average citizen. J. Harp blatantly advocates the extension of the lack of participation by an indirect threat to future employment and spare pocket change purchasing power for commodities, and yes, even necessities of life other than health care. Simply put, the country cannot afford it. There is a remote possibility that it could with tort reform, but of course neither side is that courageous. So instead of extra money for that car or new furniture expect to spend it on a health care system that our dear legislators can individually can avoid. Have we really become such a nation of dupes?
JP| 11.8.09 @ 1:28PM
The House Bill has a $250,000 fine and 5 year prison term for anyone who "consciously either under-insures themselves or opts out". For a single user, he/she will be required to pay up to $5000 a year to insure himself, with a $1500 deductible; for a a family of 4, the premiums will average between $10000-$15000 a year with a $2500 out of pocket expense minimum.
The average Joe hasn't a clue what is about to hit him. About $600 billion is expected to be drained out of Medicare before the benefits even kick it (which doesn't happen before 2013 and will be phased in until 2019). That is, we will be required to pay the higher taxes and fees for a full 3 years before 1 "uninsured" person gets covered. Businesses will be hit even harder. This will surely dampen hiring for 2010.
I'm not sure what the Dems are thinking. They are looking at real problem politically.
Lin| 11.29.09 @ 10:45PM
The Dems don't care, because they want our country
to go broke, so we can become dependent on the Government for everything. They are creating a broken environment on purpose. "CONTROL over the people"
Lin| 11.29.09 @ 10:51PM
Yes! The people will not stand against, because they
don't have the time.
They better Wake up! and Stop this nonsense right
now!
jharp| 11.8.09 @ 1:02PM
somnolence| 11.8.09 @ 12:15PM
"Simply put, the country cannot afford it. "
Nonsense. The country can't afford not to do it.
Are you unaware that we are the only country that doesn't have some sort of single payer/public plan and we pay two to three times for health care as the rest of the modern world?
For the same level of care.
Chris L.| 11.8.09 @ 2:38PM
Which is why Mexicans and Canadians come across the border to get health care here.
jharp| 11.8.09 @ 1:41PM
JP| 11.8.09 @ 1:28PM
The House Bill has a $250,000 fine and 5 year prison term for anyone who "consciously either under-insures themselves or opts out". For a single user, he/she will be required to pay up to $5000 a year to insure himself, with a $1500 deductible; for a a family of 4, the premiums will average between $10000-$15000 a year with a $2500 out of pocket expense minimum.
_____________________________________
Flat out false. There is nothing of the sort in the bill. And you are a kook. My daughter just had a classmate who went by JP drop out of high school (he was failing miserably). Are you the same JP?
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 11.8.09 @ 2:19PM
JCarp: This is your big victory here? 220-215? Wow!! Scary victory after all these months with the majority in the House!!
Choke on your little House victory Carp!! Because it's going to be a short lived one, and you know it!! This Bill is dead in the water once it gets to the Senate, and you know that too (but you will never admit it though).
So what's the Administration going to do as an encore after this Bill doesn't make it to the Presidents desk to be signed into law before the end of the year, or end of next year, or the year after that too? Are they going to try to sneak in a little Cap and Trade on us to make up for this Bill failing miserably?
You're a joke, you really are, you crack me up!! You're very funny indeed!! 220-215 LMFAO!!
JP| 11.8.09 @ 8:39PM
JHarp,
See sections 7201 and 7203 of the Bill. That is, try to read the bill. The devil is in the details. You are an accomplice to this charade. On Jan 1st, or when employees see how much more is taken out of their paycheck, they will fully realize what Pelosi and co. have done to them. And that will only be the beginning. I don't know about you. but having an additional $2000 a year withheld from my paycheck will put me under. Time to head for the barricades. I hope Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have passports...
somnolence| 11.8.09 @ 1:57PM
Harp, that is the problem----who really gives a damn what the rest of the world thinks? Most of our forebears came to this great land to escape mental and physical persecution; and sure didn't envision Marxism galore, which this bill is. Furthermore, JP is exactly right. You certainly need to brush up on your interpretive reading skills. The bill as it is is DOA in the Senate. BTW you conveniently ignore the argument that it will put more folks into unemployment, and therefore, less purchasing will go on. My God, man, it is bad enough as it is now. Your position is more than selfish and self-aggrandizing.
Lind| 11.29.09 @ 10:58PM
I agree on Marxism galore, Liberation Theology, Ecofeminism, to the core. Most of what is happening
in America, is being put in place by people who want to change our country into a New America. Which really is going to break us down into puppets, having to rely on the government, and believe me this is what these Marxist's want. Wake Up America!!! Do you want Freedom or Slavery ??
somnolence| 11.8.09 @ 2:19PM
The whole concept is really a misnomer. This is not concerned with health care. It is bill payment. And if that is what our dear representatives wish then they can reach into the overextended coffers in which we have contributed and pay the doctors from that. Only then would there be a real concept of "free" medical care. Unless you address tort reform along with all of this I don't care who you are; you have taken leave of your senses.
jharp| 11.8.09 @ 3:09PM
Reply to this
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 11.8.09 @ 2:19PM
JCarp: This is your big victory here? 220-215?
Yes, that is my big victory. And it's huge. A 100 year old battle we finally won.
And the only thing dead in the Senate is the Stupak amendment.
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 11.9.09 @ 1:07AM
"A 100 year old battle we finally won" . Really? You're wrong on both points, because this isn't over, by a long shot. So keep dreaming Fag!! About butterflys and rainbows!! And how if, only the World could just hold hands for a second, there would be World Peace. You're a *ucking dreamer!! Come back to reality!!! Wake up!!
somnolence| 11.8.09 @ 4:32PM
Both Lieberman and Lindsay Graham (two people who I am very wary of at times) indicate the bill is DOA in the Senate. I dare say they have more inside info on the issue than anyone on this page including the author.
Rank and File| 11.8.09 @ 5:58PM
jharp,
Who is your victory for? Surely you're not claiming victory for the 30 million who don't have coverage? This could have been solved by legislation granting coverage to them (the ones who want it and aren't the 12 million so wealthy they couldn't care less). But no. You continue to fight a "100 year old battle" backward toward more government. You don't understand foreign taxes and real costs. The value added tax in Europe explodes costs on the poor Europeans who claim they have cheap health care. Why do you cite other countries so willingly for your arguments? Do you know how socialized medicine is bankrupting the western world? That is your support? Moreover, racism, religious intolorence, imperialism, socialism, communism, are what Americans are running from and they are what we escaped in order to let people enjoy the fruits of their labors. Which of these other places you're so fond of referring to has such a spotless history, hmm? We've empowered the individual. Even the likes of you. Empowered. Allowed to find refuge from evil systems and dictatorships through individual merit. Yet, the horrors of devastating governments represent heavily-- HEAVILY -- in other regions. You want to look at the Balkans, Germany, Spain, France, Russia, Japan, India, Rwanda -- all your favorites -- for examples of proper political and social decorum?
Where is this magical Utopia that lives off of its own health, defense, security and economy and provides everything to all people? Switzerland? The mighty Switzerland, perhaps? Maybe Denmark? Naive, my friend. Whether a government run version of healthcare is signed by Obama or whether it fails, you will lose. We cannot afford to give the government that much power. Presume your favorite right-wing Government ran the House, Senate, Oval Office, and Judiciary. Would you want them to have so much ability to determine things essential to your life? You're blind to why our countrymen left Europe and started over hundreds of years ago. Go back to... somewhere, or learn please.
JmsA| 11.8.09 @ 8:35PM
Tight in the house, impossible in the senate...let's hope.
Pingback| 11.9.09 @ 8:44PM
Impromptus Minor 11/9: Three Wordy Bits and a Game - Cultural Gadfly links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.10.09 @ 12:59PM
Democrats Divided on Abortion - Dan_McLaughlin’s blog - RedState links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.11.09 @ 2:45AM
Democrats Divided on Abortion « Yuvablog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.20.09 @ 7:02AM
The American Spectator : Amspecblog : Members To Watch « lafayettelouisianadebtconsol links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 12.15.09 @ 9:41PM
credit repair vermont, on credit repair vermont, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 12.20.09 @ 1:01PM
Can Stupak Kill Obamacare in the House? | America Watches Obama links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.25.10 @ 1:01PM
Democrats Scramble to Save Obamacare | America Watches Obama links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.23.10 @ 7:00AM
Obamacare Faces Tough Road in the House | America Watches Obama links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: