Profiles in courage
It has come to this. U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor forthrightly says he'll vote for a routine procedural motion to allow debate on health care legislation. U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln can't even decide that.
The senator said he would vote to advance the measure to debate, but he emphasized that the vote would not be tantamount to supporting the initial version of the bill.
“Not the same,” Pryor replied when asked if voting to open debate was the same as supporting a public option. “We’re in a process … this bill could change quite a bit as it goes on the floor.”
BY THE WAY: An op-ed in New York Times today by Nate Silver and others compares senators' positions with where their states' voters stand on the notion of increasing government spending on health care to cover the uninsured. Arkansas voters, surveys show, favor more spending on health, but Lincoln and Pryor are, at best, on the fence on the health legislation. They share a characteristic with most who stand in the way of health reform -- residency in a state carried by John McCain over Barack Obama.
For instance, Senator Blanche Lincoln, a Democrat who has been a less-than-strong supporter of the present health care bill, recently told The Times, “I am responsible to the people of Arkansas, and that is where I will take my direction.” But where does she look for her cue? Hers is a poor state whose voters support health care subsidies six percentage points more than the national average. On the other hand, Mr. Obama got just 40 percent of the vote there.
Likewise, in Louisiana, where the Annenberg surveys showed health care reform to be popular but where Mr. Obama is not, the Democrats are not assured of Mary Landrieu’s vote.





Comments
The ultimate ethic of ANY politician: getting (re) elected.
Posted by: Cato
|
November 19, 2009 08:29 AM
The difference between a statesman and a politician:
A statesman thinks about the next generation; a politician thinks about the next election.
Posted by: Cato
|
November 19, 2009 08:31 AM
"[Blanche Lincoln's] is a poor state whose voters support health care subsidies six percentage points more than the national average. On the other hand, Mr. Obama got just 40 percent of the vote there.
"Likewise, in Louisiana, where the Annenberg surveys showed health care reform to be popular but where Mr. Obama is not, the Democrats are not assured of Mary Landrieu's vote."
This just reminds me how tired I am of hearing from rightists that there is no racism behind opposition to Obama's agenda and proposals. Clearly, the dilemma--between supporting legislation backed by an African-American President that meets felt needs of Lincoln's constituents vs. opposing that legislation because the constituency opposed his candidacy--sats racial antipathy is in play here.
Posted by: Snapback
|
November 19, 2009 09:27 AM
...SAYS racial antipathy...(!)
Posted by: Snapback
|
November 19, 2009 09:30 AM
Of COURSE racial antipathy's in play here, Snap. Uh, right on.
Here's another dynamic. One that plays out in the long haul.
Several years ago, I asked a teacher from NY (who taught at UAPB for a time) what she thought of Pine Bluff. "It's the perfect example of what racism does to a community," she instantly answered.
Where bigotry rules, Snap, the result's the same in the long run. Doesn't matter whether it's racial bigotry, religious bigotry, homophobia.
Bigots are always willing to shoot themselves and their societies in the foot (feet?) rather than admit their ignorance and fear, or that they're wrong, or to welcome change and growth.
Pine Bluff is not alone. There are a lot of Pine Bluffs around the country. Every year their job opportunities and economies and overall quality of life decay because of their "majorities" of bigots.
It's sad that so many Americans are still racist bigots, when it comes to President Obama.
It's sad that so many Americans, including President Obama, are homophobic religious bigots.
Because the prognosis, unfortunately, is that so much of America is destined to become "Pine Bluff" as long as bigotry reigns.
Posted by: NormaBates
|
November 19, 2009 11:57 AM
This bill is horrible.. and will not go into effect for many years. It will enrich the monsters who got us here while prices soar and nearly 50,000 citizens die from no care every year... and Pols will wait another 5 to 10 years to do anything about it.
Kill this bill, Blanche... I will celebrate if you do so.. even if your reasons are the exact opposite of mine.
Posted by: Eureka Springs, AR
|
November 19, 2009 12:08 PM
I'm still amazed that Mark Pryor is getting a pass. We have no reason to believe he is for health care reform. Him and Lincoln are probably 2 peas in a pod on this one. Since his C Street connection was uncovered, he's been mighty quiet.
Posted by: Deathbyinches
|
November 19, 2009 12:53 PM
DBI -
I always thought Mark jumped the shark last year in "Religulous" when Bill Maher asked if he actually believed in a talking snake and Pryor gave his goofy good-ol'-Pillsbury Doughboy grin until he realized he'd been had. For a split second, before the cutaway, Pryor looked like he could kill Maher for preserving his (Pryor's) pandering faux-rural religious idiocy on film.
"C" Street's gotten WAY too much attention for WAY too long. Wonder where the boys will move next?
Posted by: NormaBates
|
November 19, 2009 01:08 PM