Quin Hillyer
Conservatives need to take a deep breath, relax, and stop bashing Joseph Cao. The man never claimed to be a fully committed economic conservative. He represents a district that is about 75 percent Democrat and 62 percent black (or thereabouts). He SAID ALL ALONG, FOR MONTHS, that he would probably vote for health care reform if it included strong pro-life language such as the Stupak Amendment. He stuck to his guns, even though his district is not majority pro-life. He is a traditionalist Catholic, former Jesuit seminarian, and he stands up for the principles he holds dear, one of which is the sanctity of innocent life. He is willing to lose his office on behalf of that pro-life stance.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. 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
Ok, then
nyx on November 8, 2009 at 9:23 PM
Then just join the Democratic party and get done with it, already.
Editor on November 8, 2009 at 9:24 PM
He took derr jobs!
El_Terrible on November 8, 2009 at 9:27 PM
Then that makes him a naive fool. Does Mr. Cao really imagine that the pro-life provision will remain past the merging of the Senate and the House bills? Does he really think that a President who overturned the Mexico City Policy almost before he finished his inaugural address would sign such a provision into law? You are not the brave soldier sticking to his guns, Mr. Cao, you are Jar-Jar Binks, the ultimate useful idiot, and you have given the Sith the power they need to establish their empire. May God have mercy on your soul, and may your constituents and potential voters have none.
TheQuestion on November 8, 2009 at 9:28 PM
Voting as the lone Republican for real socialism (the take-over of 1/6 of the economy) disguised as Pelosi-care… ya, let’s cut him some slack – he’s means well (and did I mention that he’s pro-life?).
SeattleJohn on November 8, 2009 at 9:30 PM
Joe Cow is a spineless milksop who sold this country down the river by voting for Pelosi’s socialist mush pot of a health care plan.
Percy_Peabody on November 8, 2009 at 9:30 PM
And the GOP was willing to lose the war on behalf of a pro-life stance. Bad move. Wrong battle to take that stand. What was the NRLC going to do…support democrats in primaries? I think not. Think outside the box.
SouthernGent on November 8, 2009 at 9:32 PM
Pfff. If he is so commited why did he vote for a bill that still had provisions for some abortions. Plus, oh yeah, he was the ONLY Pub to vote for Pelosicare(aka the creation of USSA). Either you’re for freedom or you’re not, bold colors my friend.
SG1_Conservative on November 8, 2009 at 9:32 PM
I live in Louisiana and I’m on his mailing list. He does claim to be an economic conservative in his fund raising literature.
Just saying.
HondaV65 on November 8, 2009 at 9:37 PM
Then he should also be willing to take a little flak for selling our grandchildren down the river.
Quin Hillyer needs to nut up about criticism.
Lehosh on November 8, 2009 at 9:38 PM
Mr. Cao represents a large group of people who believe that free health care is coming their way. And for the most part, if this passes, they are correct. I would be willing to bet that considering it is Louisiana that a vast majority of his constituents are dependent on the government and will be terribly upset with him when they realize that the services don’t kick in until 2013.
Cindy Munford on November 8, 2009 at 9:40 PM
This whole Cao episode should be a teachable moment.
Never give your heart over to anyone running for or holding office.
ThePrez on November 8, 2009 at 9:40 PM
Maybe so, but Obama also claimed to be fiscally conservative when he ran. How many times did we hear “95% of you will get a tax cut” and how many times did he talk about reducing the deficit.
SG1_Conservative on November 8, 2009 at 9:40 PM
Cao could have voted no based on the fact that this bill is a job killer, a tax increaser, will hurt the quality of care, and will result in rationing for everyone. It helps no one except for the government bureaucrats and politicians who seek control. It’s far better than sticking your head in the sand and voting yes on a flawed bill.
Log on November 8, 2009 at 9:45 PM
Thanks for the unsolicited advice, Quin Hillyer. (Man does that name shout out “National Topsider”?)
Now I respectfully suggest that you ram it.
Dr. Carlo Lombardi on November 8, 2009 at 9:46 PM
I don’t think we should bash Joe Cao … I just think we shouldn’t support him with our cash anymore.
I’ll say this … with all this campaign finance reform going on – it’s totally easy to figure out where a candidate gets his funding.
If I see massive GOP funding going to Cao for voting for Obama policies and I don’t see funding going to guys like Joe Tegerdine in MS who’s trying to take out Blue Dog Gene Taylor …
There’s a problem with that picture. So … note to Mike Steele … better not let that happen m’kay?
HondaV65 on November 8, 2009 at 9:50 PM
Okay, so basically he’s a pro-life Democrat.
Fine. That puts him somewhere ahead of Pelosi on the preference list. But I’ll support a pro-life Blue Dog who voted against the bill waaay ahead of Cao anyday.
obladioblada on November 8, 2009 at 9:52 PM
Ha, kind of funny that before one can read this article there is a pop-up ad of ultimate RINO hunter Michelle Malkin encouraging visitors to read and donate to the American Spectator…
IU_Conservative on November 8, 2009 at 9:54 PM
He won’t be running against anyone like that.
exception on November 8, 2009 at 9:54 PM
He won’t be losing his office because of his pro-life stance, you putz.
D2Boston on November 8, 2009 at 9:56 PM
I’m not surprised Cao voted for the bill. People in New Orleans claim the state run Charity Hospital as part of New Orleans culture. There were also protests (with shipped in professional protesters) when housing projects were torn down.
New Orleans has a welfare mentality that runs deep. The city is a cesspool and the electorate is too stupid to figure out that the corruptocrats they keep electing are the ones dragging down the city. Cao will probably do whatever he can to stay elected but the truth is that he’ll lose to whatever Democrat runs against him next year.
Lay-Z on November 8, 2009 at 9:58 PM
True enough. But there won’t be any campaign contributions being funneled his way. His district wants a redistributionist, it doesn’t make much difference how they get it.
obladioblada on November 8, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Hs’s had very little chance at a second term. He’s an accidental Rebublican winner in a completely solid Democratic district. The little chance he has is in the power of imcumbency. Voting for this after it already had enough votes to pass kept him from being completely rejected by his constituents. Yet.
exception on November 8, 2009 at 10:04 PM
Oh puhleez, if he’s not against a government takeover of our healthcare system, then he’s not a Republican. End of story.
WisCon on November 8, 2009 at 10:09 PM
Coa has no defense. He’s a frikkin’ Judas to conservatism.
The best response to his vote is the same as I am doing to my congress critters who voted for this economy-killing health care bill: I’m mailing each a packet of 30 dimes. I understand that 30 pieces of silver is the traditional payment for betraying those who trusted you.
AW1 Tim on November 8, 2009 at 10:11 PM
It occurs to me that both Cao and Jindal might be Catholic church frontmen. Advance causes that the Church holds dear and damn the rest of us.
promachus on November 8, 2009 at 10:14 PM
Cao will lose in 2010.
He was always going to be a 1-term congressman. His district is more Democratic than Barney Frank’s district.
He had a chance to cast a principled vote, but blew it.
Good riddance.
Norwegian on November 8, 2009 at 10:15 PM
I agree. If we expect “Blue Dog” Democrats with conservative constituencies to vote with the Republicans, then we should also expect a Republican who gets a seat by a fluke (his opponent, “Dollar” Bill Jefferson was up on corruption charges and Cao got the seat by more or less default) and has an overwhelmingly Democrat constituency to vote with the Republicans.
A representative is representative of their district, not their party. The sword cuts both ways. Cao (pronounced Gao in English) is actually a poor immigrant from Viet Nam (he has a negative net worth and is one of the poorest members of Congress from a very poor district).
I have to respect his backbone in bucking his party and voting with his district just as I respect the backbone of the Blue Dogs who did the same thing.
crosspatch on November 8, 2009 at 10:17 PM
“and has an overwhelmingly Democrat constituency to vote with the Republicans.”
OOps, meant “vote with the Democrats”.
crosspatch on November 8, 2009 at 10:17 PM
Cao only won last year because of the stench left by Jefferson and his conviction. Odds are no matter how he voted here or how he votes on the final bill if it gets out of the Senate, he’s going to lose to an actual Democrat in 2010 (though New Orleans figures to be one of the few places bucking the trend in the midterm congressional voting).
jon1979 on November 8, 2009 at 10:54 PM
He did, you just don’t agree with his principle. Typical conservative fascist.
Norman Blizter on November 8, 2009 at 10:59 PM
If the Republican Party welcomes a viet cong like Cao, it’s indistinguishable from the ‘rat party.
Once you have a big tent party that includes non-marxists of every gender, race, religion and sexual preference, you then need to stand firm against that which you are not.
Buddahpundit on November 8, 2009 at 11:12 PM
He first ran for the seat in 2006 as an Independent. He got himself on the GOP ticket in 2008 and barely edged out William “Cash In The Freezer” Jefferson. In other words, he is a RINO in the purest form–he won the seat on the GOP ticket even though he really isn’t a Republican. But I don’t think we should take any actions to remove him.
It’s basically impossible for a real Republican to win the seat. So, any vote cast in our favor from the holder of that seat is a good thing… The key is making sure the RNC and friends don’t spend much money on that race! After all, we wouldn’t want another Scozzafava situation on our hands…
Outlander on November 8, 2009 at 11:16 PM
That concerns me greatly, actually. For reasons I do not understand, the Catholic Church has chosen European-style social democracy (i.e., socialism-lite) as the officially Godly form of government. The Church has called both capitalism and communism evil. It’s unfortunate, because both communism and European-style socialism result in less liberty and prosperity than capitalism and free enterprise.
Outlander on November 8, 2009 at 11:22 PM
Didn’t someone once say something about a tree, liberty, and blood?
Blarg the Destroyer on November 8, 2009 at 11:23 PM
ronsfi on November 8, 2009 at 11:41 PM
fify
ronsfi on November 8, 2009 at 11:41 PM
Very simple for people like me…
He is a Social Con, but NOT a Fiscal Con…
And sorry… but the Social Con messege LOOSES… and there is no major party who represents Fiscal Cons (although the Repubs pay lip service to it).
Which is why I am not a Republican… they put Social Policy ahead of Fiscal politcy… or… heaven forbid… defending the Constitution.
Romeo13 on November 9, 2009 at 12:05 AM
Romeo13’s bottom line is the bottom line: Social conservative, fiscal conservative – whatever. Nothing empowers him to vote for bills that are unconstitutional. We waste a lot of time and energy debating the finer points of things when all we should focus on is whether representatives, who’ve sworn to uphold the Constitution, are making good on their oath of office.
Steven on November 9, 2009 at 12:46 AM
That truly is the debate that needs to be discussed… just how, and when, did the Federal Government decide, by themselves, to change the Constitution without Amending it and giving the People, and the States, a say in that change.
Its been creaping for about 150 years… but really in the last 100 years it suddenly got changed from a limited Federal Government with enumerated powers, to a Goverment who has decided it has the POWER to do what it wishes.
There have been two Wars fought here in America over this… one Won (the Revolution), one lost (Civil War)…. will it take a Third?
Romeo13 on November 9, 2009 at 12:54 AM
Wrong.
If it was a “principled” vote, then why did he wait till the bill had garnered the minimum number of votes to pass before he cast his own “Aye” vote?
Principles had nothing to do with it.
Left Coast Right Mind on November 9, 2009 at 2:44 AM
Pro-Life Conservatives can of course, give Cao a pass. But how about those of us who are “fiscally conservative/socially tolerant” Republicans, libertarians and Pro-Choice Conservatives?
It’s easy for my friend Quinn to give him a pass, cause Quinn is Pro-Life. I am not. So, this one is extremely agonizing. In the end, I’ll still back Cao, only given his overwhelmingly Democrat district. That’s the reason to give him a pass. Not his Pro-Life stance.
ericdondero on November 9, 2009 at 5:41 AM
MaoCao is dead.
Coronagold on November 9, 2009 at 6:25 AM
I’m not giving any more money to the GOP until I am assured that traitors like Cao will receive nothing from my party. And Norm… there is no such thing as a conservative fascist. You stupid ignorant pr*ck.
ronnyraygun on November 9, 2009 at 8:07 AM
Kudos! The man seems to have something akin to honesty and integrity–but when all is said and done he is neither GOP or conservative. Perhaps he should have run as an independent. I suppose it was to get some cash to run that he chose this course, but that is certainly not admirable. No, he is not one of us and should not claim to be.
jeanie on November 9, 2009 at 8:34 AM
+5
JeffWeimer on November 9, 2009 at 9:29 AM
As a practical matter, Cao is simply Scozzafova-South, isn’t he?
Rather than ragging on him, conservatives should be highlighting the point that there’s more bipartisanship in the opposition to the House bill than in the support of the bill.
Then move on.
BuckeyeSam on November 9, 2009 at 9:29 AM
Am I going to get jumped if I say I don’t have a problem with the way Cao voted considering A) it’s not going to pass the Senate, B) he’s the Republican with the most heavily Democrat district in the House and C) he wasn’t the deciding vote?
As an NY-23er, I have a bigger problem with Bill Owens breaking FOUR campaign promises within an hour of becoming congressman, most egregiously supporting this garbage when he said he was opposed to it.
Red Cloud on November 9, 2009 at 9:29 AM
Wow. There’s a lot of accusations flying about that Cao cast an unprincipled vote. It seems odd when you consider the fact that he almost certainly cast the vote the people he represents wanted him to cast.
dieudonne on November 9, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Defending votes like this from anybody of any party is exactly how we have managed to morph from a constitutional republic to a huge welfare state, and how we will continue on to full fledged socialism.
thirteen28 on November 9, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Jimmie Bise of the Sundries Shack had a great reply to Quin’s post in the comments over there:
thirteen28 on November 9, 2009 at 9:55 AM
Cao thinks the government can fix the problems in his state. How long has it been trying to do that?
He’s still complaining about Katrina. But next door in Alabama, they’re rebuilding and moving on. What’s the difference? One state is full of people waiting for help. The other is full of people helping themselves and each other.
hawksruleva on November 9, 2009 at 10:16 AM
He’s going to lose his office because he is a Republican anyway. He won because Jefferson was a crook that got caught, and he only beat him by 3 percent. This guy will be out in 2010 once they find a non criminal Dem (meaning a crook that hasn’t been caught yet) to run against him.
LevStrauss on November 9, 2009 at 10:59 AM
No More Caobell?
Did Cao vote for the Porkulus? Did he vote for Crap and Tax? If yes, then he’s just another Dede. On the other hand, if he voted against those two abominations but blew it here, that may be the best we can hope for, for now. Still would like to see a real conservative try to knock him off in a primary, though.
Look, PelosiCare didn’t pass because of Joe Caobell. It passed because the Dems have a huge majority in the House, and simple majority rules in the HOuse.
james23 on November 9, 2009 at 11:00 AM