It’s official: Kucinich switches to “yes” on ObamaCare
posted at 10:55 am on March 17, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
As Allahpundit predicted last night, Dennis Kucinich didn’t call a press conference today just to reaffirm his opposition to a bill that contains almost nothing of what he wants. Greg Sargent confirms the inevitable for the Plumline:
In a big get for House Dems, Dennis Kucinich just made it official: He’s voting for the Senate bill, making him the first member to go on record fliping his vote from No to Yes.
“In the past week it’s become clear that the vote on the final bill will be very close,” Kucinich, who voted No last time because of the lack of the public option, said at a presser moments ago. He acknowleged that he’d be voting “not on the bill as I would like to see it, but as it is.”
“However, after careful discussions with President Obama, Speaker Pelosi” and others, Kucinich said, “I’ve decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation.”
Kucinich’s stance was being closely watched by both sides, partly as a test of President Obama’s ability to corral the support of reluctant Dems. Obama wooed him directly with a lift on Air Force One and gave a big health care speech in his district earlier this week.
How big is this get? It depends on how influential Kucinich is with his caucus. The man runs for President on a regular basis and manages to get little draft among Democrats except as a curiosity, although he does have the childrens-book character vote locked.
Obviously, having one former no vote swing to yes doesn’t mean Nancy Pelosi can pass the bill. It does, however, create a sense of momentum. Kucinich, as one of the most loony of the progressive caucus, provides cover for those progressives more connected to reality to follow suit and switch their votes to yes. Despite Kucinich’s insistence that Barack Obama didn’t offer him any deal to convert, other Democrats may decide it’s better to be on board and get something rather than end up empty-handed on the losing end of the vote anyway.
On the other hand, Blue Dog moderates who already don’t want to be linked to Nancy Pelosi in upcoming midterms may find being linked to Kucinich even less palatable. We’ll see. In this case, the real test may not be Kucinich’s switch but who will be the first to follow him.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air
“Experienced Democrats” whispering that it might be time for Holder to go
Obamacare supporter shocked that employers moving to bare bones coverage
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Yes, Dad.
Del Dolemonte on March 17, 2010 at 1:16 PM
What rights did I invent?
fogw on March 17, 2010 at 1:17 PM
Oh good grief. So what, are you going to wear a saint medallion in case you should come near him? Plant holy candles around crr6′s house to drive away the evil demon?
The “fundie” jokes practically write themselves.
Dark-Star on March 17, 2010 at 1:18 PM
You’re boring me. And you clearly don’t know anything about the Commerce clause and what the current case law is on it. Even federalist society members have admitted the bill is sustainable under the current Commerce clause case law.
Say something smart or I’ll ignore you. I think I’m going to begin not engaging people on legal issues unless they’ve obviously studied it extensively on their own, or have some sort of legal education. Lorien1973 is just another random wingnut who has an entry level sales job and waxes eloquently on the Constitution based on what he’s read on HA.
crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 1:21 PM
crr6, let us cut the BS and talk facts if you are capable of doing so.
Your side is very nearly unanimous in the goal of Socialized Medicine. Your side has no desire to fix the current system, if your side actually had that desire you would have done so with this bill. But this bill doesn’t do that, if anything it will make the problems within our system worse and worse until the system we got now must be abandoned in favor of a top down system.
No Socialized Medical scheme in the world matches the level of care, competency and miracle working of our Capitalist system provides. People have a right to protect their life as well as a to have it protected. Enforcing a lower level of care on the people is a violation of an individual’s right to life and quality of life.
No Socialized Medical scheme comes catch free. As we are seeing now in the UK, the Government is attempting to enact controls of dietary and other habits such as smoking. All of which are violations of an Individual’s Right to do with their Body as they see fit.
As we see with the more radical elements of your side such as Holdren, there are advocates of forced sterilization and abortion, violations of Reproductive Rights and Violation of Civil Liberties. And these people have the ear of important Democrats.
I could actually talk about the bill, but it is your Goals that is pertinent to the entire Healthcare Debate.
Holger on March 17, 2010 at 1:22 PM
Yes, we trashed Ojesus because he was complaining that the Constitution contains “negative liberties”. Try to wrap your pea-brain around this. Ojesus was criticizing the Constitution because it didn’t say the government must do this, the government must do that; it says what the government may not do to the people and their freedoms, and your “savior” isn’t happy with that. In other words, he thinks the Constitution should contain entitlements, but then again, you probably do too.
Get it?
If not, I just flat give up on you.
hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 1:23 PM
Ass.
kas on March 17, 2010 at 1:23 PM
That’s not what the commenters I read were doing. They thought “negative liberties” meant “bad liberties” or something.
Apparently you recognize the distinction though, so good on you.
crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 1:25 PM
I came home for lunch and run across crr6. What an arrogant ass. Quit projecting putz.
Vince on March 17, 2010 at 1:27 PM
I’m sorry, but it’s irritating. I’ve spent entire threads teaching people what Incorporation Doctrine is. Pardon me if I don’t feel like wasting time explaining to lorien that the Commerce clause doesn’t just refer to trade between states. He can read about it on his own.
crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 1:29 PM
That would be like a gift from heaven; and it’s not even my birthday!
Let me put it simply for you.
Not buying a loaf of bread means there is no commerce being engaged in. Therefore it does not fall under even the most perverted reading of the commerce clause.
Does this help you?
lorien1973 on March 17, 2010 at 1:32 PM
Despite your arrogant posturing, Lorien is right. Nowhere does the Commerce Clause give the government the power to compel someone to buy a candy bar, health care, or anything else, for that matter. The part that gets me boiling is you are bound to already know this if you are whom you represent yourself to be, yet you keep on babbling and trolling with gibberish, half-truths, and outright lies.
hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 1:33 PM
You invented none.
Holger on March 17, 2010 at 1:33 PM
Great, so can we use that argument to say there’s a right to healthcare?
Didn’t think so ; )
Not engaging in commerce is effectively, engaging in Commerce. Read Wickard. Think about the implications. Then come back.
On a lighter note, you guys keep wailing about how healthcare is like, 1/6th of the economy, but then you argue the bill isn’t sustainable under the Commerce clause. Weird.
crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 1:36 PM
I’m really not getting that part. What part of paying for doctors and medicine doesn’t qualify as commerce?
Dark-Star on March 17, 2010 at 1:39 PM
hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 1:39 PM
Please save your arrogance for when you’ve earned it.
notropis on March 17, 2010 at 1:41 PM
Because commerce is involved does not mean that you get to ignore the rest of the Constitution.
I mean goddamn. I’m just a dumb HS educated hillbilly and I can figure that much out.
hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 1:42 PM
Yes, good for you, but can you answer my original question:
What part of paying for doctors and medicine doesn’t qualify as ‘commerce’???
Dark-Star on March 17, 2010 at 1:44 PM
Please explain to me how that matters in the context of this discussion.
hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 1:45 PM
That would be like me arguing that my right to own a firearm requires the Government or my fellow man to provide me with a military assault rifle.
Does my Right to Free Speech entitle me to have an Audience? Of course it does not.
Holger on March 17, 2010 at 1:47 PM
I wonder why I was expecting a statement like this…oh well.
If commerce is involved, the Commerce Clause applies. Just HOW it applies we can argue ’till the cows come home, but it must apply by definition.
Dark-Star on March 17, 2010 at 1:47 PM
At this point, I think it would be more interesting to get a list from you of the things that you think the government doesn’t have the right to force the people to do.
I have a feeling it would be a smaller list.
Do you suppose the government could write a law requiring that every citizen purchase a fire arm?
JadeNYU on March 17, 2010 at 1:48 PM
Militia Acts of 1792 did exactly that for its time period.
Holger on March 17, 2010 at 1:49 PM
Oh I know Wickard and I get the implications. You embrace them, that’s all. I’m not into command and control economies.
Then again, I always think it’s a hoot when liberals bring up Wickard, whose ruling forced people to pay -more- for wheat because some dude was producing more than congress wanted him too. I think that really says a lot about both DC thinking -and- Obamacare, doesn’t it?
lorien1973 on March 17, 2010 at 1:50 PM
I get it. The Commerce Clause means that if you walk into the RunInAndBuySomething store and proceed to buy a pack of chewing gum, then the government may compel you to buy a Big Slurp of the flavor of their choosing?
How could I have been so blind as not to understand this before?
hillbillyjim on March 17, 2010 at 1:51 PM
I refuse to reply until you think of an even more ridiculous slipper slope example. Come on, you can do better.
crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 1:51 PM
Dude, that’s just flat wrong. Somehow you missed the whole notion of “interstate” inherent in the restriction: “among the several states.”
notropis on March 17, 2010 at 1:51 PM
Does this mean that abortion could be restricted using the commerce clause since it involves paying a doctor?
JadeNYU on March 17, 2010 at 1:52 PM
You won’t reply because it will betray your hypocrisy. We have a right to life and you claim a right to Healthcare. It only follows that a right to own firearms entitles you to a firearm from the Government, or a Right to Free Speech entitles you to be heard.
Holger on March 17, 2010 at 1:53 PM
Ok. You’re entitled to your own views. But you can’t make up your own case law. As long as we’re on the same page with that, we’re cool.
It’s one thing to say Commerce clause case law is too expansive (that’s fine, and perhaps true), and it’s quite another to argue that the current bill isn’t sustainable under that Commerce clause case law.
crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 1:53 PM
Uhhh…no I don’t.
crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 1:54 PM
Then why are you arguing for a right to Healthcare?
Holger on March 17, 2010 at 1:56 PM
It’s not a slippery slope argument.
I’m not claiming the one will lead to the other.
You are arguing that Congress has the right to regulate commerce which includes requiring citizens to purchase something (in this case health insurance).
I do not see the difference between that and a requirement that they purchase something else.
I suppose you might talk about the greater good and throw in the general welfare clause, but, there are studies that show that higher gun ownership reduces crime. A reduction in crime is certainly something that benefits the general welfare.
Furthermore, if there is less crime, there is less damage to property and less need for police, DAs, judges, etc so there is also a net savings to the government.
So, lets see….the government wants to require everyone to carry insurance because it will save the government money and benefit the general welfare and they feel they can do it because buying (or not buying) insurance is engaging in commerce and therefore involves the commerce clause.
Perhaps my logic is a bit rusty, but, I don’t see the difference between that and the government requiring someone to purchase a gun because it will save the government money and benefit the general welfare and can be justified because the act of buying (or not buying) a gun is engaging in commerce.
JadeNYU on March 17, 2010 at 1:57 PM
Where did I do that? I was just arguing that if you can invent rights, I can too. I used healthcare as an example. I don’t actually think there’s a right o healthcare in the federal constitution. Just like I don’t think there’s a right to “participate in commerce” as lorien seems to think there is.
crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 1:57 PM
Possibly.
I can’t claim to know all the ramifications of going that route; someone with more legal knowledge than I will need to answer that for certain.
Dark-Star on March 17, 2010 at 1:59 PM
Your logic isn’t rusty. But I think not buying healthcare has a marked effect on premiums and risk spreading. I’m not so sure that’s true with guns.
Even if it is true, remember even if there isn’t a judicial limitation on the Commerce clause, there’s always a democratic representation. That’s why the ridiculous examples (such as the gun one) aren’t particularly troubling. No legislature would actually do that. Because it’d be stupid and pointless. And if they did do it, they’d be voted out and it would be repealed.
crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 2:00 PM
The right to privacy has been deemed a fundamental right by the court (although that’s sorta hazy now…). So regulations would be subject to strict scrutiny.
crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 2:01 PM
Oh so you are arguing the Liberal Position for the fun of it?
Holger on March 17, 2010 at 2:04 PM
limitation.
crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 2:04 PM
Just like this so-called health care reform bill will be if the Dems pass it.
Tennman on March 17, 2010 at 2:04 PM
dude, you’re lost. Go in the corner with lorien.
crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 2:04 PM
Sure. If you can manage to do that, more power to you.
crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 2:05 PM
Why, Thank you, Crr6! On that, we can surely agree.
Tennman on March 17, 2010 at 2:06 PM
So on page one you were for the Healthcare Non-reform Reform and glad that Obama got Kucinich to fold but are now against it?
Is that you John Kerry?
Holger on March 17, 2010 at 2:13 PM
You don’t need to believe there’s a right to healthcare in the federal constitution to support the healthcare bill.
crr6 on March 17, 2010 at 2:24 PM
Correct! I am a dad, to three daughters. Any leftist who thinks he can rebut one of them in a political debate with a BJ reference is in for a forceful lesson in civility, at either my hands, or more likely directly from her.
Let’s leave the pelvic stuff to the KosKidz.
DRPrice on March 17, 2010 at 2:38 PM
FTFY, corporatist.
Rae on March 17, 2010 at 2:42 PM
Scratch that first one. The insurance industry bailout is a temporary ’30 pieces of silver’ deal; they’re likely to get hosed when the government takes over HC insurance entirely unless their lobbyists can prevent it.
Dark-Star on March 17, 2010 at 2:46 PM
Barry’s Big Medical System guarantees insurance companies some 30 million new customers! Talk about a bailout!
Besides, it’s never gonna happen. If the govt eliminates the insurance industry, and it all inevitably goes horribly wrong, they’ll only have themselves to blame. They must keep some semblance of the “free market” in place, so they’ll have someone and something else to blame for their epic central planning failures. It’s how fascists (aka corporatists) roll.
It doesn’t matter anyway. Remember: Taxes now, “benefits” NEVER.
Rae on March 17, 2010 at 3:03 PM
Oooh…that a devious idea…never thought about that one. They could take a page from the Communists: have an enemy that somehow never dies, to keep attention away from their own failings.
Good catch! I completely missed that angle. Their lobbyists certainly have enough power that such a setup is not impossible.
Dark-Star on March 17, 2010 at 3:06 PM
Could the Kucinich flip actually work in our favor? I mean, how can any blue dog from a conservative district who is worried about thier job vote for it now when someone as extreme as Kucinich sees the bill as a step towards government takeover and single-payer? It makes it harder for them to justify a yes vote.
jazzmo on March 17, 2010 at 4:10 PM
Hopefully, third time posting this is a charm:
“Kucinich told Obama that he wants a full ERISA waver [sic] and a public option in exchange for his vote.” If he gets either of those things in the reconciliation “fixer” bill, then that will trigger a backlash. His “support” could undermine the whole process.
Rae on March 17, 2010 at 4:43 PM
Fine, and I won’t “engage” you until you have seen your first patient in both an Emergency Room and Primary Care Clinic. Without it, you just can’t understand how this “reform” will negatively effect medical care in this country. I guess you obvioulsy have nothing to say that is worthy of my time.
BadBrad on March 17, 2010 at 4:57 PM
SUCKER!
CynicalOptimist on March 17, 2010 at 5:16 PM
A-well-a everybody’s heard about the Worm!
W-w-w-worm, worm, worm, Kucinich’s a worm!
A-well-a worm, worm, Kucinich’s a worm!
A-well-a worm, worm, well-a Kucinich’s a worm!
A-well-a worm, worm, Kucinich’s a worm!
A-well-a worm, worm, well-a Kucinich’s a worm!
A-well-a worm, worm, Kucinich’s a worm!
A-well-a worm, worm, well-a Kucinich’s a worm!
A-well-a worm, worm, well-a Kucinich’s a worm!
A-well-a worm, worm, Kucinich’s a worm!
A-well-a don’t you know about the worm?
Well, everybody knows that Kucinich’s a worm!
A-well-a worm, worm, hey-a Kucinich’s a worm!
A-well-a… repeat
pilamaye on March 17, 2010 at 7:03 PM
One more reason to vote against ObamaCare.
Phil Byler on March 17, 2010 at 7:23 PM
Very soon the only “Right” that may make a difference is the one outlined by the 2nd Amendment. Fortunately for those of us on the correct side of all these issues, we own the lions share.
Viper1 on March 17, 2010 at 8:47 PM
He’s a weak little man. and so is Kucinich!
Lonetown on March 18, 2010 at 5:13 AM
But Kucinich doesn’t worship virtue, doesn’t sustain the Constitution, and was just waiting for the price to be right to sell his soul down the river with America.
AS IF Obama would honor any agreement. He holds contract law in contempt. THAT is on record as his first presidential “triumph” over the Constitution.
maverick muse on March 18, 2010 at 8:39 AM
As if having your blood, DNA and biometrics on federal record isn’t bad enough (prison for the non-compliant), consider the eventuality of being pronounced dead while living as your organs are harvested.
“The Future’s Shadow” by George Neumayr @ American Spectator
maverick muse on March 18, 2010 at 8:52 AM
Love the pic.
He represents the Lollipop League, I understand…
mojo on March 18, 2010 at 3:10 PM
Hey crr6, KISS MY MAMMIE MADE ASS!!! Enough said.
nukeemnow on March 18, 2010 at 3:53 PM
But Kucinich got a autographed booster seat from air force one…those are real collector items!
JohnD9207 on March 18, 2010 at 8:28 PM
Do these people have no shame?
WaltzingMtilda on March 18, 2010 at 11:04 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3