This is true. Switching those two votes would have had the bill, if it passed at all, passing by one vote.
Maybe, maybe not. That counterfactual would have affected the political calculations performed by each of the fence-sitters, possibly moving some who did in fact vote No to avoid being the votes who killed the bill, possibly moving some who thought they were best served back home by a No vote to vote with the agenda the party was elected to fulfill.
But those 2 seats were, in fact, voted Democratic by the people of their districts, including one which had not done so since the 19th century. That’s the reality.
Bipartisan! The Great Healing has begun! Bipartisan!
Poor Joseph Gao. Well, he did ask for it.
Fortunately for him, he’s in LA and not MS. So, worst comes to worst he can just switch parties and he’ll be fine.
Of course, the GOP will have to find themselves another token.
Then again, unless Cantor gets himself on his knees in front of the EIB Altar, they may need to replace that token too…
Please help support the GOP Token Fund in 2010!
-Joe
Ins’t it “Cao”? Although it is pronounced as if it started with a “G”…
Anyway, the poor guy did have the nerve to “make a decision of conscience based on the needs of the people of my district. A lot of my constituents are uninsured, a lot of them are poor.”
He went on to say: “I have a constitutional duty to make the right decision for my district whether or not the decision was popular.”
How is it possible that this guy could possibly remain welcome in the GOP??? Doesn’t he realize that loyalty to the GOP comes first. Party over country, baby, never mind your poor constituents.
In all seriousness, good for Mr. Cao. What a guy!
It’s because the environment is more crucial than the economy. Duh.
I agree with the “Poor Mr. Cao” sentiment. Here’s a man of conscience, who actually wants to do right by his constituency, and he’s somehow a Republican? That can’t last long. Either he’s going to be primaried HARD from the right in 2010 or he’s going to have to switch to Dem. The only reason he got elected as a Republican in that district in the first place is William Jefferson’s COLD hard cash.
What I’m curious about is how do you figure out the difference between a “man of conscience, who actually wants to do right by his constituency”, and a guy who is in a district that leans hard the other way politically and needs to do whatever it takes to hold his seat?
Is it based on whether he’s voting for a liberal cause or a conservative one?
It’s based on his own words, versus the stated goal of his party, which is to make sure that nothing good happens for American citizens as long as Obama is president and the Democrats are in charge of Congress.
Better for Americans to suffer than for any Democratic plans be given a chance to work.
You think very highly of politicians. Myself I’ve noticed that all politicians do things for only the purest motives, based on their own words.
Cap and trade isn’t a tax. It’s a removal of a socialistic hand-out to a previously public-supported industry. Under cap and trade, energy companies would pay for their costs of doing business. Currently, we (where “we” is the entire population of the planet, not just citizens of some nation) pay for their costs of doing business. I thought socialism was supposed to be bad?
Wont the costs of doing buisness be passed on to the customers?
Yes, but that’s not socialism 
:smack: Now that you point it out, my quote and answer looks confusing.
I wasn’t answering his question about socialism. I was rebutting his statement that the companies will be made to pay for their own costs.
I should have ended my quote before the sentence that begins “Currently, we”.
Weird times. Decision '09 may not be decided quite yet after all.
After the Franken-Coleman spectacle, I can’t wait to witness the contortions to be performed by Rs demanding a recount. Props to Hoffman though for appearing to have some class about it:
(from the first link)
“Bill Owens was sworn in 2 days later and proceeded to vote in favor of Pelosi’s health care bill the following day. While Mr. Hoffman feels that deliberately contesting the results of the election to prevent Owens’ deciding vote in the Health Care bill would “not have been very sportsmanlike,” and that he, personally, would not like to see a politician manipulate events in that manner, he also indicated that the good of the American people and the citizens of the 23rd district would have weighed in on that decision as well.”
Maybe he isn’t a True Repub after all.
(Sorry about bumping a similar old thread in IMHO at the same time, I meant to post in this one.)
Well, of course. If I use electricity from a coal-fired power plant, then I’m contributing to damage being done, and I have a responsibility to pay to compensate for that damage. But unlike the current system, where everyone pays regardless of what they do, under cap-and-trade I’d have the option to use less electricity, or possibly even to buy it from a greener source, and pay only my share. That’s the capitalistic way.
I don’t get it.
You have the option right now to use less, and you will pay only your share (i.e. what you use). If I use more, I will pay more…
On the sly, I suspect it’s a way for the government to get their mitts on more “revenue”.
And you pay the same cost per kwh, whether the kilowatts are coming from a coal-fired plant that is costing all of us by dumping greenhouse gases in the air, or whether it’s coming from wind, water, nuclear, or solar, which don’t.
So we all pay in terms of a warmer world, while those benefiting from dumping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere don’t incur any costs besides those borne by the rest of us.