A Republican With a Conscience!!

@anniepa (27955)
United States
November 11, 2009 6:04pm CST
Was everyone else here as shocked as I was when they realized a REPUBLICAN had actually voted for the House health care bill? I sat in front of my TV in amazement and wondered, "Who IS this impostor and what has he done with the REAL Congressman in his seat?" As it turned out, Representative Joseph Cao replaced William Jefferson following a special election in the district which includes New Orleans, a district where 75% of the registered voters are Democrats. His election is considered to be a bit of a "fluke" since the man he replaced was the man famous (or INFAMOUS) for having $90,000 in his freezer! Many have said his Congressional career is likely to be shortlived. However, he voted his conscience! Read more here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/09/politics/washingtonpost/main5588729.shtml He's already feeling some pressure for voting against his party with several fundraisers already canceling on him and some donors requesting their money back but he stands by his vote and believes it was the right thing to do for his district. Any comments? Annie
1 person likes this
11 responses
• United States
12 Nov 09
Who cares about his conscience. Did he vote how the people he was elected to represent wanted him to? That is the most important question. They are suppost to be the voice of the people that elect them. Not their own voice and forget the people. Their personal opinions do not mean squat. What matters are the opinions and will of the poeple of that state and that district. Now if he voted with how the people of his dictrict wanted than I say good on him for standing with the people that elected him and not following party lines. But if he went against the wishes of the people of his district than I say run his butt out of town.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
12 Nov 09
He voted exactly how the people who elected him wanted him to vote. I clarified that in an earlier reply but I know I should have, and had intended to (OOPS!) state that in my OP. I should have made that distinction especially considering how Senator Joe Lieberman has been claiming he'll follow HIS conscience and go along with filibustering the bill in the Senate despite what HIS constituents want. In his case, it's not his "conscience" he's following, unless that's a new word for the big insurance companies in his state! Annie
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
12 Nov 09
The people are REALLY losing in many cases this time, especially if you look at the link Zeph supplied! Representatives with around 20% uninsured in their districts who have gotten half a million to over a million dollars in campaign donations from the health and insurance industries definitely put their donors over their constituents! Annie
• United States
12 Nov 09
As long as he was going along with the will of the majority of people that elected him that I don't see any issue with what he did. It is a catch 22 for him and a lot of politicans in both parties. Vote against the party...loose support from the party...vote against the will of the people....loose the peoples support. Everything works fine when the will of the poeple and the will of party are in agreement. But when they dont it can get ugly. Really ugly.Most politicans need the support of both to keep their jobs. So they have to walk a really fine line. That is why I hate the party system. It pits the will of the people against the will of the party and usually the people loose.
1 person likes this
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
12 Nov 09
Yeah, can you donate to people running for office that aren't in their district? I think I'll have to send him some money and maybe suggest he cross over to the dark side and become an Independent LOL
1 person likes this
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
12 Nov 09
I forgot, if you haven't seen this as to how congress voted as well as how many in their district are uninsured :http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/votes/house/healthcare/index.html?hpid=topnews
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
12 Nov 09
Yes, I'm sure you can donate to those not in your district as long as you don't go over the limit. I've been thinking the same thing! Actually, I really don't care if he switches parties or not but it's for sure the "right-wing wing" of the GOP will put someone against him in his primary if he stays in the party. Thanks for the link. Isn't it interesting how many Representatives who took huge amounts from the industry and have 20%, give or take a little, of their constituents without insurance still voted against the bill? I guess that tells us who they care the most about...and it's NOT their constituents! Annie
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
12 Nov 09
Yeah did you notice how some of the people that voted against it have an uninsured rate of over 30% in their districts? It's shameful!
1 person likes this
@vhmehta (621)
• United States
12 Nov 09
It is not always about being demcratic or republican. He did something that the people who elected him wanted.. period. If that means going against his own party then so be it. Atleast he was brave enough to do it! I have seen several politicians on both sides not brave enough to go against the party.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
12 Nov 09
You said a mouthful...or should that be "You wrote a handful"...lol? Annie
@iriscot (1289)
• United States
12 Nov 09
Looks to me like, if he runs on the Democratic party ticket in the next election, he'll be a shoo-in and will be hailed as a wise man! I know, my opinion doesn't mean a thing with all of the righties on this board!
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
12 Nov 09
Your opinion means every bit as much as anyone else's! Annie
@piasabird (1737)
• United States
14 Nov 09
Aww, your opinion counts. Don't let the righties get to you. I'm on another board where I sometimes feel out numbered by the lefties but I still get in there and voice an opinion. lol I'm not sure he'll be a shoo in for the next election though. But I do hope he gets his RINO butt out of the Republican party and into the party of donkeys.
1 person likes this
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
12 Nov 09
Comments? You have to pass 2000 pages of new healthcare mumbo jumbo to have a conscience? I know the Obama talking points of UtopiaCare 3000, but what are those other 1,999 pages about?
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
12 Nov 09
He did what his constituents wanted. I really goofed by omitting that from my original post, didn't I...lol? Anyway, I do agree with you about the number of pages in all bills. Why can't they simplify things a LITTLE bit? Annie
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
15 Nov 09
"...On the other hand the health care bill is 2,000 pages of mumbo jumbo that takes a lawyer to decipher..." I agree, I've wondered for years why any bill has to be hundreds or thousands of pages long and why they can't be in plain language. Annie
@piasabird (1737)
• United States
14 Nov 09
Obama is busy trying to force credit card companies into putting their contracts into plain English so normal everyday folks can understand them. On the other hand the health care bill is 2,000 pages of mumbo jumbo that takes a lawyer to decipher. What an opportunistic hypocrite Obama is! Keep the masses ignorant so he can do whatever he and his party wants.
• United States
13 Nov 09
Every once in a while you find a real public servant in there. Go Cao!
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
15 Nov 09
I just wonder how long he'll stay that way! Annie
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
13 Nov 09
No one with any kind of conscience would vote for this 1900 page travesty. When a reporter asked Pelosi if people would go to jail for not buying medical insurance, she refused to answer. If the Democrats were interested at all in reforming health care, they would have proposed a bill that does... but since that isn't their purpose, this bill will do.
@piasabird (1737)
• United States
14 Nov 09
And when they asked Obama about that jail thing he said something to the effect that there should be penalties for non compliance. So I guess he's in agreement with that Pelosi witch.
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
12 Nov 09
This was not so much a case of voting his conscience as it was a case of voting in accordance with the wishes of his constituency. The area he is from is overwhelmingly in favor of health reform (at any cost). He has very little chance of being reelected IF he does not properly represent the people who elected him (they are overwhelmingly black and Democrat and he is neither). So, his only chance at reelction is to vote in accordance with his constituency and not play party politics no matter what he believes personally (his conscience). Unfortunately, the rest of Congress is still playing "Party games" instead of listening to their voters. They do not owe their loyalty to their state, district, voters, or even the US. They are only loyal to either the Democratic or Republican party.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
12 Nov 09
Thank you for clearing up my oversight! You're right, in fact he'd said he knew his constituents were in favor of the health care bill and I'd meant to write that but I guess I got ahead of myself. He was the only Republican not loyal only to his party. Some of the Democrats don't seem to be worrying about who they're loyal to! Annie
1 person likes this
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
12 Nov 09
From what I read, the reason he voted for it was because they removed that part about paying for elective abortions. It does not mean that Republicans who did not vote for the bill were immoral creeps. I am sure that had the bill still said that abortions would still be paid for, he would have not voted for it. So do not think he is siding with the democrats, and that he is a republican in name only. There were possibly a lot of poor people in his district. In an area with high REpublican voters who lived below the poverty line, that Republican who was in charge would have tried to introduce a Republican health care bill and there were not enough Republicans in Congress to make that successful.
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
12 Nov 09
I suppose they realized that if everyone got health care, not everyone would get health care and that it would be portioned out. I mean I heard that the elderly would get short shift, and that there would be no employer paid health insurance. When there is universal health care that pays for every little visit and every aspirin or tylenol and bandage, there will be a lot of aspirins, etc. to go around, but when it comes for critical care, it will only be the most popular conditions that will get help. As for the abortion issue, Pelosi will make sure that it is put back on the table and they might sneak it in the back door. And besides there were no enough REpublicans in congress to present an alternative health care bill, but I did find this info. http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/a_tale_of_two_approaches.pdf You just have to know where to look or should I say, want to look.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
12 Nov 09
It's NOT that they "removed that part about paying for elective abortions" because ABORTIONS WERE NEVER GOING TO BE PAID FOR TO BEGIN WITH!! The Hyde Amendment prohibiting federal funds being used to pay for abortions has been in effect for decades. However, yes, he was in favor of the Stupak Amendment which actually goes much further but many people apparently don't realize that. There ARE many districts with Republican Representatives where there are poor and uninsured constituents but even when they were in power NO REPUBLICAN even tried to pass any health care reform. Annie
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
12 Nov 09
"I suppose they realized that if everyone got health care, not everyone would get health care and that it would be portioned out. I mean I heard that the elderly would get short shift, and that there would be no employer paid health insurance. When there is universal health care that pays for every little visit and every aspirin or tylenol and bandage, there will be a lot of aspirins, etc. to go around, but when it comes for critical care, it will only be the most popular conditions that will get help." The elderly won't be affected in any bad way and the bill actually gives incentives for employers to offer health insurance, so what you've "heard" is pretty much all bogus. "As for the abortion issue, Pelosi will make sure that it is put back on the table and they might sneak it in the back door." It's never been ON the table and it can't be "sneaked in the back door" because there is already an existing law against federal funds paying for abortions! "And besides there were no enough Republicans in congress to present an alternative health care bill, but I did find this info. http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/a_tale_of_two_approaches.pdf You just have to know where to look or should I say, want to look." They did present that alternative bill and it was voted on. I posted about it recently. Annie
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
12 Nov 09
That's funny because it looked to me like there were 39 democrats with a conscience. Of course those 39 democrats and this 1 republican were meaningless and I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to know that. They basically got together with Pelosi and the democratic leadership who told them "We have enough votes without you so you can vote against it to placate your district knowing full well that it will pass anyway." The Republican was even more meaningless because he waited until AFTER the bill was passed to vote for it. Trust me, I was actually watching the votes get counted as it was happening. He even reminded people he voted after it was passed thinking that would soften the blow of him going against his party.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
12 Nov 09
Alright, Taskr, I guess you got me...lol! I never said he's a saint or that he's NOT a politician, did I? Thank you for giving me credit for some intelligence, by the way, even if it wasn't exactly sincere. I was watching the vote as it happened as well, by the way. In all fairness, you must admit Cao was literally between a rock and a hard place. If he'd voted against the bill he'd have ensured himself not getting reelected but by voting for it he's ensured that the GOP will fight tooth and nail against him, even though if they run a "conservative" in the primary and that person wins that will pretty much guarantee a Democrat will gain back that seat. When you wrote, "They basically got together with Pelosi and the democratic leadership who told them "We have enough votes without you so you can vote against it to placate your district" knowing full well that it will pass anyway," did you mean the Democrats who voted "nay" were really for it? I seriously didn't see it that way! Annie
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
12 Nov 09
WOW! talk about trying to have both ends in the middle. The guy is a pretty good player for a rookie isn't he?
2 people like this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
13 Nov 09
"Thank you for giving me credit for some intelligence, by the way, even if it wasn't exactly sincere." I was sincere in that I think you understand how the game is played in Washington. The "blue dogs" are a joke. They vote with republicans just enough to make sure their vote is meaningless and in this case it was a republican who waited till the vote was ALREADY OVER to ensure his vote was meaningless. "even though if they run a "conservative" in the primary and that person wins that will pretty much guarantee a Democrat will gain back that seat." I totally disagree with you. I'm sure you're referring to the NY 23rd. As you know the GOP didn't run a "conservative" they ran a democrat with an R next to her name and wasted almost a million dollars on her campaign before a 3rd party conservative stole enough of her support to make her irrelevant and she endorsed a democrat, showing her true colors. In that case the GOP was more concerned with having the R than having someone who stood for conservative values. It was just a handful of high profile republicans like Pawlenty, Palin, and Thompson who endorsed the conservative since they cared more about pertinent issues than the letter R.
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
12 Nov 09
Don't confuse conscience with power plays. Congress members don't have consciences, they have re-election power plays. If you get that so easily confused, than it is no surprise that the Republicans have a clear shot at the 2010 elections. On a side note, the health care plan proposed will not reduce anyone's costs. In fact, it will break one of President Obama's fundamental promises of no tax raises for the middle class and still leaves around 25 million uninsured. Oh yeah, don't buy health insurance and you could go to jail but at least you would have free health care there.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
12 Nov 09
No, I don't get anything so easily confused! What "tax raises for the middle class" for the middle class are you referring to? "...don't buy health insurance and you could go to jail" is one way in which many people seem to be confused because that is totally misleading! I realize there are many members of Congress that don't have consciences but I'm not going to paint them all with that broad a brush. Actually Cao is "new" to politics and especially to Congress so who knows, there may be hope for him! Annie
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
12 Nov 09
You know, if I didn't like to DISCUSS and DEBATE things I wouldn't be here and I have no problem whatsoever with those who disagree with me or even point out my own mistakes. However, I can do without the disrespect and the sarcasm. Now, I suppose I COULD say "NEWSFLASH", the Senate hasn't even voted yet and then the bills will go into conference so nothing, including how it will all be paid for and when it will go into effect, is carved in stone. DUH... Gee, it's fun to pretend I'm back in junior high! Annie
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
12 Nov 09
You know, if I didn't like to DISCUSS and DEBATE things I wouldn't be here and I have no problem whatsoever with those who disagree with me or even point out my own mistakes. However, I can do without the disrespect and the sarcasm. Now, I suppose I COULD say "NEWSFLASH", the Senate hasn't even voted yet and then the bills will go into conference so nothing, including how it will all be paid for and when it will go into effect, is carved in stone. DUH... Gee, it's fun to pretend I'm back in junior high! Annie