Kucinich Wants His Amendment Back

[Turborama]

Source: Washington Independent

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) was none too happy when House leaders stripped his single-payer provision from their $894 billion health reform proposal. Today, he’s urging House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to reinstate it.

“Like many other important reforms included in the underlying bill, the Kucinich amendment is the object of attack by the insurance industry,” Kucinich wrote in a letter. “Unlike other reform measures, Leadership has chosen to strip the Kucinich amendment of the protection it deserves.”

Kucinich’s provision, which would allow states to set up single-payer health care systems modeled after Medicare, passed the House Education and Labor Committee in July, but was stripped out by Democratic leaders as they pieced together their final bill from the various committee proposals. Kucinich concedes that the provision represents “incremental reform.” “But,” he adds, “it allows the country to move incrementally in the direction that is needed.”

If Education and Labor Chairman George Miller (D-Calif.) is right about there being no floor amendments, this plea could be Kucinich’s last shot.

Update (4:46 p.m.): Democratic Reps John Conyers (Mich.), Eric Massa (N.Y.), Neil Abercrombie (Hawaii), Janice Schakowsky (Ill.), Lynn Woolsey (Calif.) and Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.) have also signed the letter.

Read more: http://washingtonindependent.com/65956/kucinich-wants-h...

[NYC_SKP]

1. Rec. nt

[Go2Peace]

79. Wow rec+2, I had no idea that States could not do this in the first place, excellent idea!

[valerief]

2. I LOVE this guy! He's absolutely right. It should be there. nt

[dhpgetsit]

17. No shit.

It's so disappointing to see all the best parts of the legislation being removed while all the parts that look like corporate welfare remain.

But we can't quit the fight.

[No Elephants]

29. So, what's our next move in this fight?

[timzi]

33. Write The President

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

[John Q. Citizen]

37. It's now or never. Write or Call Pelosi, Waxman, and Miller this weekend. The

bill is being debated and voted on starting Thursday, so we don't have much time.

Let me get you their numbers.

Waxman- WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE
2204 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]

LOS ANGELES OFFICE
8436 West Third Street, Ste 600 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone [phone] Telephone [phone] Telephone [phone] Fax [phone] You can call him at: Los Angeles 323-651-1040
or fax him at 323.655.0502.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi Washington, DC 20515
[phone]
http://speaker.house.gov/contact /

Rep George Miller
http://georgemiller.house.gov /...

Please contact these House leadership Members and tell them that you want the Kucinich amendment put back into the house bill.

[mascarax]

38. Done & here's another point - "don't add me to your donation list...

until I can enroll in a similar plan to yours!"

thanks for posting...

[barbtries]

61. i wrote to pelosi

thanks

[pattmarty]

40. My opinion, "bend over and drop your drawers". At this stage (not yet in FINAL form)..............

...............kill the bill, BUT take away the anti trust provision from these thieves and put in STRONG regulation. This way you can control these pricks and the public disgust will build where we can finally pass "Medicare for all". My belief is this way you will get better control and not have the "shotgun" mess that the final bill is sure to be.

[bluestateguy]

3. They should just let it be voted upon

It doesn't have the votes to pass anyway.

[No Elephants]

25. They can't take that chance. Besides, they don't want to have a record of who voted against it.

This way, the public remains in the dark, just as God and the Framers intended.



BTW, anyone enjoy irony?



"Miller and fellow leader Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said the dozens ofclosed-door caucus meetings and private consultations between leaders and the different sub-groups of House Democrats are replacing the need for amendments to be debated and voted upon on the House floor.

They also noted that the bill will be available online for three days before the vote and the previous versions of the bill have been online for months.

“There's been an openness about this process that’s been unprecedented,” DeLauro said.







After months of secret meetings, they announce the bill will be on line for three days, but there will be no amendments, then call that a historically open proccess.



Now, I ask you: How could anyone not love 'em when they're so damned funny?


(Yeah, yeah, I know, the bill was online for months, along with many others, a couple of which ran over 1000 pages. As if they really thought voters were going to read all that with no idea of which bill was going to see daylight. Puh-lease.)

[jtrockville]

4. I want his amendment back too.

[nyy1998]

71. The headline is a poorly worded

It makes it sounds like Kucinich wants his toy back or something.

[dflprincess]

5. If this isn't part of the bill

it just proves that the whole point is to protect the insurance companies, not us.

[jtrockville]

6. Banning single-payer at the outset was proof enough for me.

After that I could only hope for a few crumbs. But alas, even that seems to have been setting the bar too high.

[No Elephants]

23. Crumbs? You silly! If they did not want to keep your money, they would not have taken it in the

first place. Duh. Why on earth would you expect to get any of it back? *shakes head*

It works like this.

Your money goes to the Treasury, which gives it to big business, which donates some of it to the politicians, who give some of it to big media for advertising to get your vote, which you give away for free.

[pattmarty]

41. Agree. If this is as good as it gets, this country is in a whole lot of hurt.

[pattmarty]

47. I was thinking about your post and the last paragraph in particular....................

Isn't that a definition of fascism?

[tblue]

55. That's it. Change we can believe in (like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy)

Waaaaaaah. I could just cry. We've been played.

[Vidar]

7. Recommended for Dennis, one of the very few actually fighting for us.

[juno jones]

8. K&R! n/t

[Hekate]

9. KnR. It's not over till it's over. Thanks Dennis. nt

[emilyg]

10. k/r

[upi402]

11. The difference between Obama and Kucinich

is the difference between 'left' and 'right'.

Thank you Dennis Kucinich


He's one of the very few pols I will donate to anymore.

[RollWithIt]

20. nothing personal, but bullshit

There are far more issues Obama and Kucinich agree than disagree on. Yes, Kucinich is more liberal but trying to say Obama is on the "right" is retarded. In my opinion.

[Bluenorthwest]

34. Obama opposes equal civil rights for all

He opposes the shards of decency that are the Kucinich amendment. He thinks Cheney and Bush and Gonzo should not be investigated nor punished.
That is pretty far right. He supports second class treatment of minorities he does not like, based on his personal religion. A religion which he himself does not practice at all. He quotes St Paul to spit on gay people, but Paul commanded that slaves should obey their masters and that women should remain silent in the gatherings. Do you think Obama believes slaves should obey masters? Do you? If not, then his 'faith' is a steaming pile of right wing bigotry wrapped up in choir robes.

[Deja Q]

86. So the hate crimes law means nothing?

[pattmarty]

42. I agree with the op. "Bill" Obama. A lot here probably don't realize.............

..............but Nixon was actually more liberal on domestic policies than either Bill Clinton or "Bill" Obama. I voted for and supported Obama because I really felt that he WOULD make a difference. AND, like A LOT of people that voted for him, I am disappointed. This isn't the "Change we can believe in", it's more of the "centrist" bullshit.

[tblue]

56. But Obama sure can give a good speech.

Obama's priorities are re-election and bipartisanship (so he can win Virginia and other red states again). Progressive voters who put him in office are just thrown a bone now and then to keep us quiet.

The sooner more of us figure that out, the sooner we can focus our efforts on him, and not just Congress. Only when he realizes he can't take us for granted in 2012, can we begin molding him into the leader and the president he has the potential to become.

[flyarm]

83. +1

[howmad1]

94. Obama can get a job in any used car lot in the country.

When he loses in 2012, he'll have no problem getting a great sales job in any car showroom. What a smooth talker. All talk and no action.

[eridani]

12. Me too n/t

[bjobotts]

13. By the time it's done there won't even be a PO. Reform priv. ins. can bleieve in.

[bjobotts]

14. Democracy = the public demands it but our elected leaders say we don't work for you.

[bjobotts]

15. With the internet we just aren't buying their excuses anymore.We see thru the propaganda

[No Elephants]

26. The public demands nothing.

[RollWithIt]

21. Bet ya there is a PO in the bill Obama signs...

Worst case scenario is a trigger. But there will be a PO created by the bill.

[t0dd]

22. Ooooo, what a bold bet you are making

There'll be some watered down variant of the public option in the bill! What amazing prophetic powers you have. Too bad whatever we end up with won't resemble health care reform. Oh, there's a public option trigger in the bill designed to never be triggered! But it's still got "public option" in its name! We did it you guys! Victory!

[Name removed]

24. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No Elephants]

27. Obama will sign whatever Congress sends him and declare victory.

And triggers mean zero will happen after the bill is signed, no matter what.

[change_notfinetuning]

44. You mean like with the credit card bill? Pass anything; declare victory. n/t

[pattmarty]

45. You are right, but with the "trigger" we will have ONE Republican..................

..............so we can not only declare it a victory BUT ALSO bipartisan.

[John Q. Citizen]

39. What will the PO do in the bill that Obama signs? How many people will be able to

enroll?

Will it be cheaper than private insurance, or will it be more expensive, and why?

There are a lot of details that will make a very big difference in terms of what a PO actually does in the real world.


The insurance industry will be collecting about a trillion a decade in tax dollars to subsidize low income people and they will also be collecting a huge amount from the unfunded mandate, people who have to buy their product, at least another trillion.

They will be attempting to maximize profits and they will be attempting to make sure that whatever PO got put into the legislation is minimal in terms of impact on their bottom line. They will have the funds to continue to bribe our law makers and there will be a continual assault on any provision in the bill, including the PO, that impacts their bottom line negatively.

So it's really important that people have some insurance , a fall back position that they can use in case things go bad. And things do sometimes go bad. Nobody has ever tried PO before, or in fact, nobody has ever attempted to set up a health care system as a reform using private companies that are so unregulated.

So the ability of people in a state to decide to go with a single payer system (which we know works well, it's time tested and real world proven) is crucial. We need it.

[closeupready]

48. Effectiveness of SP is precisely why insurance industry will move heaven & earth to shoot it down.

They have the money and firepower to destroy even preliminary steps to a nationwide single payer system. Their profitable cash cows (known as insurance companies) are at risk. They ain't going to go quietly.

[John Q. Citizen]

50. The California Legislature passed it twice. The Guvenator will be gone soon.

We need the Kucinich amendment in the fibnal bill so that states can enact a single payer system for their state if they decide to.

[pattmarty]

43. If the so called public option is in the final bill but doesn't do or mean...........

........anything, then why even have it in at all? If you start with bad and end up with shit, where's the gain?

[HillbillyBob]

73. Well if we could get EVERYONE to withhold premium payments

to the insurance ogres what could they do? I mean everyone. (and yea I know it won't happen because there are too many sheeple)

[Norrin Radd]

16. kr

[SpiralHawk]

18. "Bring it on." - Human Beings for Single Payer

The rest is claptrap.

[RollWithIt]

19. Question about this, devils advocate....

If you set up a system where the states have the ability to create their own systems don't you open the door for states to Opt out of a Federal program? If so, that could become a hell of a problem. For example, lets say they pass a public Federal option. But, and this is just hypothetical, Florida creates their own State run system. So the Federal program gets zero dollars from the State of Florida. Plus all the lawsuits from state to state?

[John Q. Citizen]

35. States have always been the inovation and R+D areas for many many things the Feds finally do.

From emancipation, to womens sufferage, to Social Security, States were doing it long before the Feds decided it made sense.

[No Elephants]

28. One of few people in Washington, D. C. who even seems to care about anyone but himself.

Sanders and Feingold, too.

I wish I had my primary vote and donations to do over. He still would have lost, of course, but at least I wouldn't feel so ripped off.

[Greyhound]

30. There are quite a few in the House, maybe 4 in the Senate, but you won't hear

much, if anything, about them. The ruling parasites won everybody that matters.

[No Elephants]

31. The ruling parasites do not work alone. Just read the unconditional hero worship on this board

sometimes, and the excuses, and the willings to settle for and admire whatever ultimately trickles down.

I never realized before that the point of The Emperor's New Clothes was so hard to get.

[Greyhound]

64. Very true, there is always a need for "Gatekeepers". n/t

[indimuse]

KNR!!

PUT IT BACK!!!!! Don't give up Dennis!!!

[indimuse]

32. KNR!!

PUT IT BACK!!!!! Don't give up Dennis!!!

[Bluenorthwest]

36. I see Rep Abercrombie's name on that letter

Neil Abercrombie has known Obama since Barack was a child. It was in fact Neil's endorsement that pulled me in. Neil knows this amendment is important.

[ejbr]

46. k & r n/t

[freddie mertz]

49. Thank you Dennis, for standing up for the people.

nt

[orbitalman]

51. How can someone sooo RIGHT...

be so continually ignored or trashed by those who should be standing with him?? I guess I'll never understand it. Still, we can't quit fighting. (Sorta like the Afghan insurgency)

[scentopine]

52. If is wasn't for DK and lately Grayson - people would have zero

representation. Only the "corporate citizens" have policy making influence. Let's call them "preferred shareholders". They have special voting rights and exceptions to common law and justice. By default, these privileges are available to any fortune 500 corporation.

The rest of us are employees of the preferred shareholders who run our proxy style government. The government gives us some common stock (e.g. "hope for change") as an incentive in the form of options. These options are supposed to keep us working for the corporation. The expectation is that if we do a good job for the corporation, we'll profit with the corporation. But the game is rigged. Like 99% of all stock options, our Government offers the illusion of public participation and partnership, but our options will expire worthless even as the preferred shareholders rake in the cash with bonuses and preferred shares.

The DLC has put their stamp of approval on this policy of "corporations first, people last". They did this because they hoped to take a page out of the republican strategy handbook. They didn't anticipate the financial meltdown, however. So here we are with the DLC completely out of phase with our crippled economy. The DLC still digging up the Reaganomics and trickle down theory of "the rich come first". They are slapping a new coat of varnish on a turd and passing it off as change.

[fascisthunter]

53. Very close to leaving the democratic party

just waiting and watching.... the democratic party will be very sorry. So, conservo dems... you may think you are winning here, but for a generation you will lose everything! So suck on the feted corporate tit... because it won't matter soon.

[scentopine]

70. Same here - I'm struggling just to vote and

I won't vote for republican nor democrat. I keep getting calls for cash and help with campaigning like I did with Obama and local dems, they can't seem to understand why I am refusing. 30 years straight dem ticket. But be aware Dem Party leadership couldn't give a rat's ass about you. The 50 states strategy was snuffed out by Rahm Emanuel and we are back to a focus on a few key states and corporate cash. Its so much easier to follow the money than build up a nationwide grass roots base of support that has to answer to millions of citizens. Its almost like Demo leadership held their noses and "allowed" us to work and campaign for them. Once the election was over - they gave us a big fuck you and spread their legs like $5 whores for Fortune 500 republicans.

We seem to be a single republican party with extreme republican (republican) and "moderate" republican (democrats). Obama and DLC are triangulating - trying to tap into wealthy (formally known as) Bush republicans who jumped ship last election and who have complete control over Dem party leadership.

I'm interested in hearing your ideas about fighting against our government who puts corporations and republicans ahead of citizens and those of us previously known as liberal Democrats. I'm looking for alternative places to invest my time and money.

[liam_laddie]

75. Very well stated, scentopine!

I too haven't figured out what to do, and to whom...I suspect that Rahm, Inc. would be high on my list of enemies.

[flyarm]

84. You are not alone!! I hear it from dems every day just about..no robust PO and they won't vote..and

will leave the party!

And i will be right there with them!

[fascisthunter]

99. then maybe we are the party and we should boot them all out!

fuck it... it's ours

[Nederland]

54. Kucinich fails to accomplish something?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you...

Why you all love this guy is beyond me. He can't ever get anything done. He is a total failure as a politician.

[Kermitt Gribble]

59. As compared to

the rest in congress who manage to get so much done in favor of their corporate donors?

[Nederland]

63. As compared to someone like Teddy Kennedy...

...who managed to rack up an impressive collection of legislative accomplishments, many of them passed during the years Democrats were in the minority. You see, good ideas are a dime a dozen. Hell, you can browse DU for half an hour and find dozens of them. The real value lies in people that are able to get shit done. Kucinich is not one of those people. He is a bright, passionate guy with lousy political skills.

[mvd]

65. Right on - not his fault if they STRIP his amendment

I'm amazed at how much Dennis gets done considering how the party attempts to marginalize him.

on edit:

Kennedy was a great man and politician, but I wouldn't compare him with Dennis. There is only one Ted Kennedy, who got enormous respect from the party. Kucinich is more liberal than Kennedy, and if the party showed Kucinich the respect they show the blue dogs, he'd get even more done. Dennis wants single payer and he backed it up with this crafty amendment.

[Nederland]

68. Yes it is

Politics is about relationships. It's about being able to persuade people that your ideas are a good and garnering support for your bills. Kucinich spends so much time telling everyone else in Congress that they are either idiots or sellouts that nobody likes him and nobody will help him do anything. He is a total failure as a politician.

[mvd]

69. No he is not

And I explained in my edit.

And a little truth when it comes to telling Congress is good.

[closeupready]

76. I would nominate this post if I could.

Very good observation - good politics is about PERSUASION, not about insulting people or calling them whores or idiots EVEN IF THEY ARE WHORES AND IDIOTS!!! (Lot of people here don't seem to get that.) You call the whore "charming", and tell the idiot "I used to think like you before I learned differently".

[Go2Peace]

81. And you would both be completely wrong in your understanding

Sure, just having a bunch of politic playing get's things done, but by itself little **progress** happens. You need "Dennis Kucinich"'s just as you need "Ted Kennedy"s, you need them **both**.

Kucinich has a different role to play. And he plays it brilliantly. In the last 2 elections he has been INSTRUMENTAL in changing our national dialog.

And I am sorry, if you think you can really reason that way with corruption and deception good luck. In my life I have seen that arrogant and prideful people only come down to earth if they *fall*, or if they feel so much shame from others that they finally are forced to become humble.

If we follow your prescription we will just get false promises, more corruption, and further troubles down the road.

[closeupready]

96. The world is big enough for many different points of view.

You have some good points; so do we. Shalom/Asalaam Aleikum/Chill out.

[flyarm]

85. Politics is about doing what the people have sent you to do ..on behalf of the people and

their constitutants..what part of 65% of the american people want the PO don't you or they understand??????

The ROBUST public option WASSS the watered down compromise...to Single Payer...how far down in a pile of shit do we have to go..before the people we sent to Washington as our employees..do what we want them to do..that is the relationship they have to we the people.

If they don't do their job..count on it that there will be a huge change in DC in the next election!

[Nederland]

98. I agree

And do you think the people sent him to Washington to make condescending speeches and fail to deliver legislation that is important to them?

[change_notfinetuning]

88. Sellouts don't like to be reminded they are fucking sellouts? Imagine that!

[Go2Peace]

80. He has an uphill battle because he actually represents people. Sure it's easy to be corrupt! Glad

you prefer corruption as long as it is "effective".

[SandWalker1984]

57. And I want a REAL public option back - House version = premiums higher than private insurance

I just read the following story regarding the Pelosi version of a public option and it is a SCAM.

Because they will limit the number of people that can access this version of a public option, because many of those that do will be people with pre-existing conditions & already shunned by the health care corporations, the PREMIUMS ARE EXPECTED TO BE HIGHER THAN THOSE OF PRIVATE INSURANCE.


Public Option, RIP?The Congressional Budget Office explains the perils of compromise and the limits of its own interest in health costs.
By Timothy NoahPosted Friday, Oct. 30, 2009

I've had a bad feeling since Tuesday that Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman's pledge to filibuster any variety of public option eliminated its chances of becoming law. Continuing recalcitrance from moderate Democrats didn't help, either. But I never figured that the final death blow would come from the Congressional Budget Office.

Here's the killer sentence, spotted by Politico's Carrie Budoff Brown on Page 6 of the CBO's analysis of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's "blended" House bill: " public plan paying negotiated rates ... would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average premiums for the private plans in the exchanges."

Whaa? Most analyses of the public plan, including mine, have assumed that even the watered-down "level playing field" version (i.e., the version in Pelosi's bill and also—with an "opt out" provision slapped on—in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's yet-to-be-scored Senate bill) would set premiums lower than private insurers. But the CBO says that's wrong.

More specifically, here's what the CBO says: "The public plan would have lower administrative costs than those private plans but would probably engage in less management of utilization by its enrollees and attract a less healthy pool of enrollees. (The effects of that 'adverse selection' on the public plan's premiums would be only partially offset by the 'risk adjustment' procedures that would apply to all plans operating in the exchanges.)"

SNIP

The CBO is saying that a public option that was required to be self-sustaining financially and that was barred from aligning its doctor and hospital fees with Medicare's—as Pelosi's level-playing-field version would be—would see its role as sanctuary doom its role as price competitor. Private insurers would engage in aggressive "management of utilization by its enrollees," i.e., dumping or avoiding the people most likely to need the services of doctors and hospitals, leaving them no place to go except the public option. This would drive down private insurers' costs and drive up the public option's. The CBO acknowledges that Pelosi's public option would have lower administrative expenses than private plans. But because its ability to drive down doctor and hospital fees would be somewhat inhibited by its level-playing-field structure, its cost advantages would be outweighed by its cost disadvantage in serving a disproportionately unwell population.

In short: Private insurers have been fretting that a public option would doom them, but the CBO is saying the opposite: Private insurers would doom (or at least put at a significant disadvantage) the public option.

This is a nightmare scenario that Paul Starr, the sociologist and Hillarycare veteran, has been warning about for some time. "Over-constrained," Starr wrote this past June in the American Prospect ("Perils of the Public Plan"), "the public plan could go into a death spiral ... as it becomes a dumping ground for high-risk enrollees, its rates rise, and it loses its appeal to the public at large." I've long thought that Starr was being too pessimistic because Congress would never design a public option this vulnerable. According to the CBO, however, that's just what Pelosi did.

Please read the rest of the story at
http://www.slate.com/id/2234175/pagenum/all/#p2


THE PUBLIC OPTION, AS PROPOSED IN THE HOUSE BILL, IS DOOMED TO FAIL AND PELOSI KNOWS IT!!!!

THE INSURANCE CORPORATION CEOS MUST BE LAUGHING THEIR ASSES OFF AT HOW STUPID WE ARE.

[NikolaC]

58. K&R

Dennis is right, again.

[barbtries]

60. why don't our lawmakers

want to do the right thing by the people

[flyarm]

82. BECAUSE THERE ARE NO TWO PARTIES ANYMORE..there is one big party with a giant money pot

in the middle!
They only allow you to think there are two parties.,.they both work from opposite ends and crush those in the middle...that being ...the middle class!

[winyanstaz]

62. You rock Dennis...

Thank you for trying so hard to help us...

[mvd]

66. Kicking for Dennis

[Laelth]

67. k&r for the Honorable Dennis Kucinich.

At least someone is protecting the interests of the people.





-Laelth

[mvd]

77. Yes and have you ever heard him actually insult anyone?

I have not.

[Laelth]

90. I have not either. Though plenty have deserved it. n/t

-Laelth

[dana_b]

72. k&r

I wish I had a rep. to write to but I'll call/write Pelosi and the others this weekend.

[mvd]

74. Hi dana!

Thanks; I'll do the same as I feel very strongly about this. Do I agree with Kucinich on everything? No. Nobody is perfect. But he and Progressive Caucus represent my views the most. People who dislike him are entitled to their opinions, but I have looked over Kuch's record and am satisfied.

Peace and Happy Halloween!

[dana_b]

93. agreed!

we're not going to agree with ANYONE much less a politician 100% of the time but his views seem to most resemble mine as well.

Happy Halloween!!

[pleah]

78. K&R

[ooglymoogly]

87. Dennis is right as usual....one of the slim handful

fighting for what is right for this country while most are trying to destroy it for their own gain.

[Kurovski]

89. K&R. (nt)

[tekisui]

91. knr!~

[New Dawn]

92. K&R

[DissedByBush]

95. Go Dennis!

I may not always agree with you, but you're a breath of fresh honest air in an environment clouded with corruption and special interests.

[slipslidingaway]

97. knr - here are the votes for the Kucinich amendment in committee...

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/44566

"Democrats
* George Miller, Chairman (CA-07) N
* Dale E. Kildee (MI-05) N
* Donald M. Payne (NJ-10) PASS, Y
* Robert E. Andrews (NJ-01) N
* Robert C. Scott (VA-03) --, Y
* Lynn C. Woolsey (CA-06) Y
* Rubén Hinojosa (TX-15) N
* Carolyn McCarthy (NY-04) N
* John F. Tierney (MA-06) --, --, Y
* Dennis J. Kucinich (OH-10) Y
* David Wu (OR-01) PASS, PASS
* Rush D. Holt (NJ-12) Y
* Susan A. Davis (CA-53) PASS, N
* Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07) Y
* Timothy H. Bishop (NY-01) N
* Joe Sestak (PA-07) N
* Dave Loebsack (IA-02) Y
* Mazie Hirono (HI-02) PASS, N
* Jason Altmire (PA-04) N
* Phil Hare (IL-17) N
* Yvette Clarke (NY-11) --, --
* Joe Courtney (CT-02) N
* Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01) --, Y
* Marcia Fudge (OH-11) Y
* Jared Polis (CO-2) PASS, Y
* Paul Tonko (NY-21) --, --, Y
* Pedro Pierluisi (PR) --, --
* Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan (Northern Mariana Islands) N
* Dina Titus (NV-3) N
* Judy Chu PASS, PASS,


UPDATE: final vote tally was 27, 19, 2. We picked up Wu (who switched his pass vote) and Clarke (who showed up late but has been consistent in her support)..."

[mvd]

100. That's too bad about Sestak

I will consider this when I vote in the primaries.

[slipslidingaway]

101. Maybe let his office know if you have time :) n/t