Sunday, November 22, 2009

Who's Most Likely to Vote Against the Health Care Bill

In looking at the voting records and personal feelings of some of the Democrats in the Senate, it can be shown that the following are most likely to vote against the health care plan. Many of these have different reasons, but they could hold the key (or the lock) to passing the bill.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA)

Already has over $100 million in the bill for state funding in her pocket for voting yes. While this may certainly seem attractive, it could also be seen as back-door corruption. If the issue gets hot enough, she might have to back off or be seen as a pork guzzler.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE)

Nelson is from one of the reddest states in the Union, and while well-liked, he could be facing a large backlash for his vote. Not only this, he could ruin the chances for other Democrats seeking Nebraska office. Nelson has already stated that he is against a public option being run by the feds and wants to see it done by the states. His pro-life stance could also cause him to vote against a bill which could pay for abortions. Nelson even said: "I don't want a big-government, Washington-run operation that would undermine the ... private insurance that 200 million Americans now have,"

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)

Bayh is a moderate from a state which gave George W. Bush 60% in 2004. Even though President Obama narrowly won the state last year, the fading of Obamamania and smaller turnout could destroy other Dems. Bayh voted for debate, but has expressed doubt about the bill.

Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)

A formerly relatively unknown Senator from Arkansas she faces an uphill battle no matter what she does. She's already seeing opponents nearly tying her, while polls suggest that if she votes yes on the bill, she might as well retire. She has also threatened a filibuster against the bill despite voting to debate.

Bernie Sanders (Socialist-VT)

One of only two independents in the Senate, you might be surprised to see Sanders' name. However, the Vermont Socialist has stated that he would vote down a health care bill that did not include the public option. He has also stated that his support for the bill is "in no ways guaranteed."

Sherrod Brown (D-OH)

Brown, elected in the Democratic wave of 2006, is giving similar warnings as Sanders. Brown, whose term is not up next year, is worried that the Democrats have already given up enough to the Republicans and moderate Democrats.

Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

One of the two liberal Republicans elected to the Senate from Maine, Snowe has signaled that she will likely vote for President Obama's health care plan. There have been signs, however, that conservatives in the party want to challenge the Senator-- and voting yes could cause this to happen. This could even create a situation where Snowe changes parties.

Joe Lieberman (I-CT)

The Independent Democrat has bucked the party's trends since 2002, and looks like he might be voting against the bill. Lieberman, who might not run for reelection in 2012, may not care if the left wing of his party challenged him again. Lieberman has also stated that he opposes a public option. Fearing an increasing deficit, Lieberman may vote no.

Susan Collins (R-ME)

Collins appears to have no major qualms with the substance of the bill, but may wind up voting no because the bill as presented may not lower overall medical costs.

My prediction:

All of these Senators, with the exception of Lieberman and Nelson will likely vote yes. Even Lincoln appears to please the party apparatus and looks unlikely to win in 2010 anyway.


B. Johnson said...

The USSC has already officially noted that the Founding Fathers "voted" against federal healthcare.

“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925.

What's going on is this. Regardless that Reid and Pelosi wrap themselves in the general welfare and commerce clauses (Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 and 3 respectively) to promote constitutionally unauthorized federal healthcare, Thomas Jefferson's writing indicate that their interpretations of these clauses are perversions of what the Founders had actually intended with respect to the federal government's limited powers. See for yourself.

“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.” –Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.

Note that Jefferson also clearly explained the general welfare clause in the document referenced above, emphasizing the importance of constitutionally express powers in order to limit the powers of the federal government.

Reid and Pelosi's perversions of the general welfare and commerce clauses actually got started in constitutionally clueless FDR's administration. More specifically, by 1942, Socialist FDR had managed to nominate eight pro-big federal government, outcome-driven justices to the USSC.

And the goal of FDR's showcase of state-sovereignty ignoring justices was evidently the following. Their goal seemed to be to simply ignore pro-state sovereignty constitutional statutes like Article V and the 10th Amendment when they interpreted (perverted) the general welfare and commerce clauses in pivotal cases.

The bottom line is that Reid and Pelosi are unthinkingly carrying the torch of FDR's perversions of the Founders intentions for the general welfare and commerce clauses to try to justify constitutionally unauthorized federal healthcare.

Infolinks In Text Ads


blogger templates | Make Money Online