Loading ...
I spent the better part of this past weekend defending Democratic Rep. Artur Davis, Rep. Bobby Bright and Rep. Parker Griffith to progressives around the country. Why? Because they were amongst the 39 Democrats who voted against HR 3962 on Saturday night, and many progressives view that as unforgiveable offense.
Here is the reality, when advocates for healthcare reform called to talk to staffers in Rep. Bright and Griffith’s offices, they were told the calls, e-mails, letters and faxes were running about 80-90% against the bill. What is a representative supposed to do with that? If the feedback was evenly split, then yes, you take a principled position and defend it to those who feel different to the best of your ability. But how exactly is any representative supposed to defend going against 90% of his consituents?
So, believe me I understand the WHY of their votes, but they could have done more to present the facts to their constituents without supporting the bill. Rep. Griffith only did one town-hall style meeting and Rep. Bright did none (only a conference call). Even more than that, Rep. Bright did a series of meetings on how to obtain federal funds during the recess when other congressmen and women were defending the bill to their constituents. I’m not suggesting Griffith and Bright should have defended a bill that they don’t believe in, but they certainly could have had more discussions where they explained why they didn’t like the bill and asked constituents to express their concerns about healthcare as well. Perhaps they could even have corrected some of the misinformation that was flying around (and continues), imagine that.
Rep. Davis is in a very different position. He stated clearly back in August, why he was against what the House was trying to do. The provisions that bothered him then were still part of the plan that passed on Saturday. I don’t believe this vote would have been a make or break issue, even if he was running for re-election to Congress, but I also don’t dispute those who argue he had different considerations because he is running for governor. He has stood alone among the Alabama delegation many times in the seven years he has been in Congress, and it would not have been a surprise for him to do so again. Yet, he is also a strong supporter of small business, so his thinking should not be a shock to anyone who has followed the congressman closely.
In the end, the votes of congressmen and women are influenced by many factors, but anyone who expects a representative to go against their fellow constituents at the levels that were expected from Bright and Griffith is just impossible. And those who understand the importance of small business men and women to Rep. Davis should not be surprised that this bill was a struggle for him as well. In the end, none of their votes were needed and we move on to the Senate and another battle where the entire Alabama delegation will be against the legislation from the start.
loading...
Related posts:
- Davis, Griffith and Bright Push Back at AG Holder on Assault Weapons Ban Alabama Representatives Artur Davis, Bobby Bright and Parker Griffith...
- In Defense of Bright and Griffith I echo the sentiments of bluebearcat at Left in...
- Bright and Griffith Among Most Vulnerable Blue Dogs in ‘10 Nate Silver made a point yesterday in passing that...
- Bobby Bright Continues to Walk the Line Rep. Bobby Bright has been challenged early in his...
- Bobby Bright as Example of the Challenge Southern Blue Dogs Face The New York Times had a piece that was...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Griffith had three town halls. I went to all of them.
loading...
“And I demand social security? How about the entire country demands social security?”
Do you think it’s good that our countrymen demand things of the government that the government is incapable of providing? Did people used to demand these things of the government? The American people were suckered into allowing the government to grab more power in the last large economic crisis (the Great Depression) and now we’re being suckered again. 30 years from now when Healthcare fails how are we going to remove it from our system? People will be just as dependent then as they are now (to current entitlement programs). Our government grows in size and NEVER contracts itself. You ask me what I’d like to see spending stopped on because you know of the dependency of millions of people. I’d say that I’d liked to have seen NONE of these things come into existence! Adding more vote buying program to the list shackles our government and our people ever more.
That being said, if I were given unilateral control of our state and federal governments I would reduce the number of recipients of entitlement programs by as much as possible as well as reduce the military’s budget to 2x our closest competitor and invest more in NASA (+ other forms of research) and higher education.
Back to my previous post: Would our country be in its current financial crisis (the largest crisis to face our country in its short history) had we not gone down the road of big government? The obvious answer is NO!
loading...
I am torn. part of me wants this to end and part of me enjoys the swirling debate.
1) Kris you did good with the Amtrak statement in the 1st post. In the second post you stated that further investment in infrastructure would cause it to be profitable as a fact. You cannot state events not in evidence as a fact as they are speculative. On that note Americans are notoriously attached to there cars and without major gas taxes to encourage rail transport of cargo and people amtrak will not be profitable.
2)I am unsure how you made the statement that a program that costs 900B-1.2Trillion can reduce the deficit. The link is not available so I am unsure as to how you reached that conclusion.
3) Social Security..third rail and need it’s own thread.
4)Ensuring is general welfare is not a primary function of Government and is not enumerated in the Constitution. The Constitution does exist to Promote general welfare. Sincere people can disagree on the best approach to that goal.
5)Thomas please , please , please tone down the rhetoric and develop some facts. I am sure we agree on most things and I firmly believe that a liberal democratic position can not withstand facts and logic. Conservatism is from the brain where liberalism is born of the heart. You do yourself a disservice and weaken your position by relying on general theory alone.
6) Dan…THANK YOU for participating in the town halls held by Griffin. any Details would be appreciated and perhaps this could get closer the original topic.
loading...
Sorry but I had to bring this up since I saw it today> Liberals like to point to the post office and the way it successfully competes with UPS and FEDex. It lost $3.4B and now congress is considering a bailout. The future of the Public Option.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/19/politics/main5711797.shtml
loading...