And Now For The Electoral Politics Of Saturday's Health Care Vote

The votes had barely been cast when the fundraising letters started flying. I'm mostly on the lists of progressives so the e-mails I got were celebratory. Yesterday we looked at the e-mails explaining the only two "no" votes from progressives-- Dennis Kucinich and Eric Massa-- who felt the bill didn't go far enough towards their goals: single payer. This morning's CQPolitics tried to answer the question, Who Took A Risk By Voting For The Health Care Bill?, presumably a question framed by the RNC, since it didn't ask, Who Took A Risk By Voting Against The Health Care Bill?"

Dozens of House Democrats bucked their party on Saturday's health care vote. But how about those who might have taken a political risk by siding with their party?

Let's look at the Democrats from Republican-leaning districts who voted for the bill and Republicans from Democratic-friendly districts who opposed it.

Of the 49 House Democrats that represent districts that John McCain won in 2008, 18 of them voted for the bill.

The Democrat from the most pro-McCain district who voted for the health care bill was Marion Berry of Arkansas, who's in his seventh term representing an area that gave McCain 59 percent of the vote. Of the 15 Democrats from the most pro-McCain districts who voted for the measure, Berry was the only "yes" vote. Also voting yes were West Virginia Reps. Alan B. Mollohan and Nick J. Rahall Jr., whose districts gave McCain 57 percent and 56 percent respectively.

Yet Berry, Mollohan and Rahall are veteran members who usually win their elections overwhelmingly; Berry and Mollohan didn't even draw GOP opposition in 2008, and Rahall won a 17th term with two-thirds of the vote. All three districts have median incomes far below the national average.

They posit that less senior members who voted yes, freshmen and sophomores like Ann Kirkpatrick, the Arizona Democrat from the most pro-McCain district who voted for the bill, Blue Dogs Chris Carney (PA), Zack Space (OH) and Kathy Dahlkemper (PA), plus generally progressive Tom Perriello (VA) are the most vulnerable. Adam Blake at The Hill also looked at this today from a similar perspective, At Risk Democrats Defend Their Tough Votes On Health Care. Blake, though, started by talking about the risk that Democrats who voted against the bill took. And the worst of the Democratic shills of the Insurance Industry, Suzanne Kosmas, a Florida conservative, is surely the most likely Democrat to be defeated next year, having done that old Creigh Deeds magic of completely turning off the base. She was trying to back-pedal as fast as she could.

“Though I will not be voting in favor of the House bill, it has improved since first being released last summer, and it shows promise,” said Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-Fla.) before voting no. She was picketed afterward by supporters of the legislation.

Another freshman, Rep. John Boccieri (D-Ohio), said he held out hope.

“I hope when the healthcare reform bill comes back from the Senate, the concerns of my district are addressed,” he said.

Rep. Larry Kissell (D-N.C.) also announced before the vote that he would be opposing the bill. That has irritated the blogosphere, which helped put him on the political map three years ago.

“From the day I announced my candidacy for this office, I promised to protect Medicare,” Kissell said in his statement. “I gave my word I wouldn’t cut it and I intend to keep that promise.”

But for every targeted member voting against the bill, there was another who voted for it. And many of them were happy to pin their names and political futures to the legislation.

Rep. Chris Carney (D-Pa.), who according to the Cook Political Report represents the most Republican district held by a supporter of the bill, said Democrats “stood firm.”

“Today’s legislation is a strong start in the healthcare reform process, and we look forward to working closely with our Senate colleagues to move the issue forward in the coming weeks,” Carney said.

Carney acknowledged that the bill wasn’t perfect, but Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.) had nothing but good things to say about it. While many voting against the bill stressed that the cost was too high, Titus said the bill will help small businesses and Americans.

“The House took a giant step toward making healthcare reform affordable and accessible for more people in southern Nevada and across the country,” she said.

Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio) said Monday that he would campaign on  the vote.

...But several Democrats appear dead-set against the bill, including many of the 15 who voted against bringing the bill to the floor — a procedural motion that in general breaks solidly along party lines.

In that group were vulnerable Reps. Bobby Bright (D-Ala.), Travis Childers (D-Miss.), Frank Kratovil (D-Md.), Parker Griffith (D-Ala.) and Walt Minnick (D-Idaho), as well as Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.), who is running for Senate in deep-red Louisiana.

Those six members all represent districts that went by double digits for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in last year’s presidential race, and most of them have broken with their party on other big-ticket items this year, including the stimulus package and the energy bill.

Hard to imagine how any of them expect to turn out Democrats-- who overwhelmingly favor meaningful health care reform-- to vote for them in 2010. And the districts' already have anti-health care Republicans running. The House will be a far better place, though, without the likes of quivering, confused reactionaries like Bright, Childers, Kratovil, Griffith, Minnick, and Melancon, something we invite you to help us achieve at the Blue America Bad Dogs page.

Most Democrats are out there telling their constituents why this is a step in the right direction. Gwen Moore, the Democrat from Milwaukee who personally debated GOP and Insurance Industry shill Paul Ryan, was very proud of her vote for the bill. She wrote to her constituents today that Congress had "tirelessly debated and reviewed this bill-- and its numerous amendments--  and I believe that this legislation is a crucial step toward providing quality, affordable health care to the working people of Milwaukee, the citizens of the great state of Wisconsin and to everyone in our nation."

The legislation will drastically improve our current health care system to make quality and affordable health care available to families who are struggling under the crushing costs of health care at a time when they are also suffering in the worst economy since the Great Depression. I'm proud to have supported a public option in this bill and to have voted for a plan that I believe meets President's Obama's criteria for reform-- offering stability, reducing the cost of health care for everyone, and not adding to the deficit.

...I take my responsibility to best represent Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and all of America very seriously. When we have seniors being forced to choose between expensive medication and their next meal,  there can be no question that the current health care system is broken. As a Member of Congress, the Vice-Chair of the Women's Caucus, a mother, a grandmother, a woman and an American, I simply refuse to sit by and allow our great nation to fall behind when it comes to ensuring the health of our citizens.

Our nation deserves better and this is why I am proud to have voted "Yes". Yes for you, yes for our seniors, yes for our children, yes for real health care reform.

But what about Republicans? Do you think an electorate craving health care reform is going to endorse systematic, mindless obstructionism from the entire party? Even between a quarter and a third of Republican voters favor a public option. CQPolitics made an off-handed mention of some risk for a few Republicans at the tail end of their story.

Of the 33 House Republicans who represent districts Obama won in 2008, all but one -- Anh "Joseph" Cao of Louisiana, whose black-majority New Orleans district gave three-fourths of its votes to Obama-- joined the rest of the GOP Conference in opposing the health care bill.

After Cao, the Republican from the most strongly pro-Obama district is Delaware Rep. Michael N. Castle, who is a candidate for the Senate seat formerly held by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. Democratic officials last week pressed Castle to vote for the legislation, though the congressman said that it "over-reaches by creating new government programs costing over $1 trillion, paid for from tax increases and cuts to Medicare which are more gimmicks than real entitlement reform."

Illinois Rep. Mark Steven Kirk also voted no, despite representing a district that voted nearly as strongly for Obama (61 percent) as the state at-large (62 percent). He's running for an open Senate seat in 2010 and faces little-known but vocal opposition on his right in a primary election and more serious competition on his left in a general election.

Except for Cao, Reps. Erik Paulsen of Minnesota and Leonard Lance of New Jersey are the only first-term House Republicans from districts Obama carried, though neither is presently a top target for defeat by Democratic strategists.

Funny they didn't mention all the races where Republicans voted against the wishes of their districts, including 8 vulnerable California Republicans in districts Obama won-- including several, David Dreier, Ken Calvert, Mary Bono Mack, Brian Bilbray and Dan Lungren-- who have vigorous challenges coming up next year. Similarly, unless he resigns, Bill Young in Florida is likely to be defeated and Michigan Republicans Thaddeus McCotter, Fred Upton and Dave Camp are all considered on shaky ground. Also likely to regret having voted against health care reform are Charlie Dent (PA), Judy Biggert (IL), Paul Ryan (WI) and Dave Reichert (WA).

Dreier's opponent, Russ Warner, wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper, explaining the difference between his position and Dreier's negativity. He called the victory on Saturday "bittersweet" for his district because of Dreier's obstructionism. "I applaud," he wrote, "Congress’ passage of the Affordable Health Care for America Act because it includes a strong public option and will ensure affordability for the middle class. It also provides security for our seniors; ends discrimination for pre-existing medical conditions; invests in wellness and prevention; and ensures responsibility to our children-- by not adding a dime to the deficit. A great deal of work remains before President Obama can sign the act into law. Please join me in urging our Senators to support healthcare reform. And, don’t let David Dreier off the hook-– let him know you’re disappointed with his actions." And Francine Busby, who's taking on Brian Bilbray further south was quite to put out a press release making it clear that unlike her opponent she supports the bill.

Francine Busby, candidate for the 50th Congressional District, joins the American Medical Association and the American Association of Retired People in supporting the landmark Affordable Health Care For Americans Act of 2009.

“Although it is not perfect, the Affordable Health Care Act is a first step in the right direction for all Americans including the voters of the 50th District. Americans can breathe a sigh of relief that Congress has taken a stand against the status quo that allows insurance companies to dictate medical decisions to healthcare professionals, ration care, bankrupt families, increase costs to employers, and deny coverage to millions of Americans.”

Congressman Bilbray voted against this bill. Bilbray voted against providing access to insurance to over 60,000 uninsured people in his own 50th District, and over 500,000 San Diegans across the county. Bilbray seems to be more concerned with the health of health insurance companies than his own constituents. And maybe for monetary reasons: Bilbray has received $51,000 from health insurance giants including Blue Cross, Cigna and Aflac, along with $33,000 from insurance political action committees such as the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers and the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America. Taking insurance companies payoffs and then doing their bidding in Washington-- such as voting against the Affordable Health Care Act-- puts insurance company profits before the well-being of his constituents.

In fact, savvy Democratic challengers all over the country are castigating Republicans-- and anti-choice Blue Dogs-- for their bad votes Saturday. Ohio is a state where voters are very much in favor of meaningful health care reform. The progressive candidate for the open Senate seat, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, has been a longtime proponent of both healthcare reform and Choice. She was out fast and strong on Saturday's vote.

The Stupak-Pitts amendment makes it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women, even if they pay for such coverage with their own funds. The amendment disallows any coverage of abortion in the public option and disallows anyone receiving a federal subsidy from purchasing a health insurance plan that includes abortion.  Under the amendment, private health insurance plans are forbidden from offering through the planned insurance exchange a plan that includes abortion coverage to both subsidized and unsubsidized individuals purchasing through the exchange.

The Stupak-Pitts amendment would leave women worse off than they are today in obtaining reproductive health services by denying them the right to use their own money to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage. This restriction is far more onerous than the Hyde Amendment, which has prohibited public funding of abortions since 1977. Presently, more than 85 percent of private-insurance plans cover abortion services.

By voting late Saturday to block women from essential reproductive health care services, the anti-choice obstructionists in Congress have abandoned women and would render a woman's constitutional right to choose ineffective at best. The final health care bill must not only guarantee each American woman’s right to the health care she needs when she needs it, it also must also provide access to reproductive health services for all, regardless of income level and regardless of whether or not they receive government subsidized care.

Less well-known in the political world, but probably better known in the world of pop culture, Surya Yalamanchili, a marketing executive whose apolitical moment of fame came when he was a contestant on Donald Trump's Apprentice, is having a run, as an independent, at reactionary knuckledragger Mean Jean Schmidt (R-OH). Schmidt is widely disliked in her very Republican district and has never won a convincing victory. Yalamanchili thinks next year will be her last year in Congress.

“The overriding issue for this campaign is to get special interests out of the way and get individual people’s voices heard in government again,” he said.

Yalamanchili, who is not accepting PAC contributions, bemoaned the large amounts of campaign funds that the financial services industry has bestowed on both the Democratic and Republican parties, which he said have engaged in partisan bickering and ignored the nation’s long-term challenges... [He] said that the economic stimulus law President Obama signed into law in February included a “lot of pork” but was a “painful pill that we probably had to take.” He said the health care bill the House passed last weekend was “better than what we have now,” but didn’t include enough consumer choice or “tort reform” to curb lawsuit abuse.