imself; even among fans, few knew much about him, and what was known generated questions concerning his motivations, his background, his reliability, his heart.The stakes were high enough that teammates and fans disregarded the sketchy parts of his record and assumed he would come through when it counted. Suspense built as events moved toward a gripping late-night crucible, and it became apparent that his performance could determine victory or defeat.
And then he proved himself with the right vote at the right time (just before midnight). Stilling fears about his awkward background, his uncertain leanings, his creepy pals (some of whom he bunks with -- literally), he provided an invaluable vote for healthcare reform.
Never again doubt Mike Doyle (left) in the clutch.
Another local Democrat, however, has some 'splainin' to do. He dithered. He contributed nothing substantive to debate. He consumed the time, effort and spirits of Democrats for months. Yesterday, he voted for a nasty, overreaching amendment that pandered to anti-abortion absolutists -- but even that did not break his supporters, who were willing to see it as a distasteful but practical ('one step back, two steps forward') tactic.
And then, at the defining moment of his term as a member of Congress, Jason Altmire (right) inexplicably stood with Michele Bachmann, Joe Wilson, Steve King and Mike Pence, and voted against healthcare reform.
If a credible, persuasive explanation of Rep. Altmire's conduct exists, he should provide it promptly. His constituents deserve it and his legislative career appears to depend on it.
UPDATE: Rep. Altmire has issued an explanation, albeit one neither credible nor persuasive. (Whom are these collegues he expects to be "working with," now that the Democratic infantry has moved on without him? And what sequence of events toward a better bill could have been promoted by his "no" vote? Did he ask anyone to read this gibberish before he posted it?) Given the press of events and the likelihood he was shortstaffed on the weekend, Rep. Altmire should be given until the close of business on Monday to extend and revise these remarks, ideally working toward the "credible and persuasive" standard.
10 comments:
I can doubt Doyle in a clutch because he voted for the Stupak amendment along with his bunkmate Stupak.
Doyle voted to single out women to be the only class of people to actually lose coverage under the HCR bill.
Screw Doyle.
Seriously, you doubted that Doyle would vote for the HCR bill?
I don't know anyone else who did.
Throwing women under the bus? Sure! But voting against labor? No way!
Unless one is confident that the core healthcare bill would have passed after the Stupak amendment failed, it seems unreasonable -- or, at least, impractical -- to excoriate Speaker Pelosi (for permitting the Stupak amendment to reach a vote) or the members who voted for the Stupak amendment (perhaps arranging an opportunity for the core bill to reach a conference committee) for their conduct.
If there is an argument supporting that confidence, I have not encountered it yet.
There is another course -- one could have been willing to send the core bill to the ditch by standing on principle with respect to the Stupak amendment. That type of principle can be extremely expensive, and I find it difficult to fault anyone who considered it to have been an unaffordable luxury in this circumstance.
Out of all the "type of principle[s]", women's reproductive rights are always the types that are considered to be an "unaffordable luxury."
Really, I should be used to it by now.
Being a women is a pre-existing condition after all.
It appears there are more anti-abortion votes in the House of Representatives than there are pro-choice votes. I consider that unfortunate. It was particularly objectionable that the anti-abortion members pushed past the 'no government funds' line into 'nothing within a mile of government funds' territory. I hope there will be an opportunity to address that point before a healthcare law is enacted, or soon after.
Would you have scuttled healthcare reform if that were necessary to prevent passage of the Stupak amendment? Were you willing to sustain an appreciable risk? Reasonable minds can differ on those points.
It appears there are more anti-abortion votes in the House of Representatives than there are pro-choice votes. I consider that unfortunate. It was particularly objectionable that the anti-abortion members pushed past the 'no government funds' line into 'nothing within a mile of government funds' territory. I hope there will be an opportunity to address that point before a healthcare law is enacted, or soon after.
Would you have scuttled healthcare reform if that were necessary to prevent passage of the Stupak amendment? Were you willing to sustain an appreciable risk? Reasonable minds can differ on those points.
"Would you have scuttled healthcare reform if that were necessary to prevent passage of the Stupak amendment?"
Let's review:
I am condemning Doyle for voting for Stupak.
I am tired of him getting a pass on his anti choice antics which are also against the party's platform.
You said that he's someone that we can "Never again doubt Mike Doyle (left) in the clutch."
I guess you have the luxury of defining "clutch" differently than I do.
Oh, and by the way, the only ones who actually threatened to scuttle health care reform were the Reps who pushed for and voted for Stupak.
Yet, I'm not supposed to be PO'd at them when they threstened to shut down HCR? Really?
Reports indicate that, had the Stupak amendment not been added to the core bill, that bill would have failed.
I am not aware that Doyle took a position opposing the core bill unless it included the Stupak amendment; if he did, I fault him for that.
I sense that Rep. Doyle was among the members attempting to arrange a core bill that would pass. I applaud him for that.
Mine are not the only reasonable opinions.
I read somewhere Doyle described as the "point man" for whipping conservative Democrats into voting for the health care bill if it included Stupak.
Doyle is pro-life. A majority of the House of Reps is apparently pro-life. Lots of women are pro-life. I'm pro-choice, Maria is pro-choice, and Infinonymous is pro-choice -- which means we need to come up with better arguments for why people ought to be pro-choice. Because the crying fetuses scampering away from suction tubes angle is working too well.
um, I haven't refreshed since last night's read so this may be redundant.
yes, Maria, we're a pre-existing condition. Yes, Stupak sets the pro-choice agenda, a major platform plank for this voter, back into the paleolithic age. Rather than rail against Mike Doyle and his bunkmates why don't we call on our own (pre-existing) strength and fortify our cause?
Emily's Listees + pro-choice Hollywood celebs. Planned Parenthood and NARAL. Add a chunk of job-creation stimulus money and we just might come up with a viable not-for-profit business model. Can we fix it? Yes we can!
Post a Comment