As you may know, the House just passed (once again) an expansion to S-CHIP which will, of course, be signed by incoming President Obama after two vetoes from George Bush. In 2007, SSP made a hobby of keeping a hairy eyeball on the twisted reptiles who voted against providing healthcare to children, sure that it would make a potent election issue (apart from the obvious wrongness of the vote). So now we’re here to revisit our Crumb-Bum Roll Call.
First, a little update. Six members of Congress have taken themselves off the crumb-bum rolls, including one Democrat:
Diaz-Balart, Lincoln (FL-21)
Diaz-Balart, Mario (FL-25)
Frelinghuysen, Rodney (NJ-11)
McCotter, Thaddeus (MI-11)
Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (FL-18)
Taylor, Gene (MS-04)
Don’t know what caused Taylor’s change of heart (or Frelinghuysen’s), but clearly the Diaz-Balarts & IRL are hoping to ward off tough challeneges in the future, as they had in 2008. Goes to show you that even a losing effort can have a real impact.
Thad McCotter, meanwhile, won by just six points in a totally unheralded race. Smart move on his part – but some of his similarly-situated colleagues (eg, Ken Calvert, Dan Lungren, Judy Biggert) still have their heads deep in the wingnut sand. Quelle surprise.
On the flipside, two Republicans decided to join their crumb-bum-alicious brethren and switch from “yes” to “no”:
Latham, Tom (IA-04)
McMorris Rodgers, Cathy (WA-05)
I’d really love to see what their explanations are.
Anyhow, probably the most important detail here is that eleven GOPers who voted against S-CHIP in the 110th Congress are now looking for other work:
Chabot, Steve (OH-01)
Drake, Thelma (VA-02)
Feeney, Tom (FL-24)
Goode, Virgil (VA-05)
Hayes, Robin (NC-08)
Keller, Ric (FL-08)
Knollenberg, Joe (MI-09)
Kuhl, Randy (NY-29)
Musgrave, Marilyn (CO-04)
Sali, Bill (ID-01)
Walberg, Tim (MI-07)
Meanwhile, three Republicans couldn’t save themselves even with S-CHIP “ayes”:
English, Phil (PA-03)
Porter, Jon (NV-03)
Shays, Chris (CT-04)
Indeed, every freshman Democrat except for Bobby Bright (sheesh) voted for the bill. (The only other Dem holdout was Jim Marshall. Enough already.) A number of freshman Republicans voted yes as well:
Austria, Steve (OH-07)
Cao, Joseph (LA-02)
Lance, Leonard (NJ-07)
Lee, Chris (NY-26)
Paulsen, Erik (MN-03)
Thompson, Glenn (PA-05)
Cao we know about. Lance, Paulsen and to some extent Lee are in competitive districts. I’m not sure what explains Thompson’s or Austria’s votes, though.
In any event, the good news is two-fold: This expansion of S-CHIP will finally be signed into law, and plenty of GOPers are still fool enough to vote against extremely popular legislation that helped do in a number of their caucus-mates. I’m really liking 2009 so far.
That guy pretty much ran like a conservative Republican in his district, the only difference was he had a D next to his name. Oh well, if we can keep that district blue next cycle, it’s a small price to pay to keep guys like him around.
As for why freshman Republicans we are not vulnerable next time and who voted for the S-CHIP expansion, it kind of goes back to that notion that no matter your partisan ideology, there are some things that transcend partisan divides and brings people together. Since this site is dedicated to partisanship, I understand why it’s hard for you to wrap your head around such an idea.
The guy has already voted against pay fairness and children’s health. And he’ll still be vulnerable in 2010. High cost, low reward.
Cathy McMorris Rodgers recently became vice chair of the House Republican Conference. Presumably, in a leadership role, she may feel more obligated to vote the party line
both had easier than expected re-elections this past year, despite Obama doing very well in their districts. I guess they feel more confident.
That small and shrinking group of Republicans from the Northeast voted for SCHIP by a 13-4 margin. The four who didn’t included right wing extremist Scott Garrett from NJ who still may be the only Republican who would be vulnerable from that district (NJ-5), Pitts and Shuster from PA, and the 80-something Roscoe Bartlett who polled 58% in a rock solid Republican district. Bartlett, too, may be the only R from the district who could possibly lose. He doesn’r raise money and isn’t too energetic on the stump.
Along with Garrett and Bartlett, scanning through the list gave a lot of vulnerables:
Michele Bachmann of Minnesota 6
Judy Biggert of IL 13 (I think) won 53-47 and will be 73
Brian Bilbray
Gus Bilirakis may not survive as well as dad
Ken Valvert Mr. 1% win
Culberson
Fleming
Sam Graves I guess he’s liberated by winning a big scare kinda easy
Walter Jones Not vulnerable but a surprise (unless there is another Jones)
Blaine Leutkemeyer Won by 8,000 votes over Judy Baker
Don Manzullo
McCaul
Gary Miller,CA
Mike Rogers, MI (is he insane)
Tom Rooney, FL It’s a one-term district. RU Nuts?
Peter Roskam, IL-6
Paul Ryan, WI Was easy but GM closed the plant
Aaron Schock Knew he was stupid in an ideological way
Mark Souder Close race. Dumb vote.
Lee Terry Those Obama-Terry voters must be having second thoughts in Omaha.
I live in Glenn Thompson’s district and during the election i thought that he would be exactly like Peterson and be more of a party follower but i was open to him and its nice to see how he voted on this. Also, in the local paper he was noted for expressing interest in the stimulus package and how he thinks some of it could be used on local highway projects. Im hoping he will surprise me in the future and maybe he won’t be that bad.
Last time this bill was up for a vote he claimed that republicans would “lose their soul” by passing S-CHIP. Yesterday he voted in favor. Guess when you only get 51% of the vote in the last election your soul no longer matters.
The Diaz-Balarts and Ros-Lehtinen probably voted for the bill this time because it stripped the ridiculous provision that legal immigrants (with an l) have to wait five years to become eligible for SCHIP.
Several times:
http://www.bleedingheartland.c…
He was just briefly posturing during the campaign.
Now he’s confident Democrats won’t be able to seriously challenge him in 2010.
So far he’s been pretty solid, voting with us on 2 of the first 3 major votes. Not bad for a freshman in the reddest dem-held district in the nation. Ya Bobby Bright… I’m looking at you!
From the OP: “plenty of GOPers are still fool enough to vote against extremely popular legislation that helped do in a number of their caucus-mates.”
I have problems with the S-CHIP expansion which makes it not necessarily an easy vote. What does it say about our liberal values that we care about insuring kids so much that…we’ll force smokers to pick up the tab? Because the expansion is paid for by raising the federal cigarette tax.
It’s easy for something to be “extremely popular” if someone else has to pay for it. If we were serious about the program, shouldn’t we say that we’re willing to pay for it? If we’re not, what does that say about our support for the program?
(And never mind the fact that if the “sin tax” on tobacco is successful in cutting down smoking, it also reduces the money for the program, making it an unreliable funding mechanism.)
I’m all for insuring kids. But I’m against government that absolves its constituents of the responsibility for paying for the things they say they want–whether it’s insuring kids or tax cuts–because it’s just not a sustainable method of running a country. One would think we would have learned over the past 8 years that there is no free lunch.
So I don’t think this vote is a slam-dunk, even for liberals. Perhaps in terms of politics it is, but the larger policy questions are not so easily dismissed. I would have had reservations voting for it because we can force the responsibility for large programs onto a few only for so long.
And since there are legitimate policy issues here, I’d refrain from characterizing those voting no as mere crumb-bums.
Wait…reptiles?
I remember seeing a video of Larry Grant crticizing Sali for exactly this, noting that even Mike Simpson voted for it.