SCHIP Bill Passes the House

This is the email I just sent Bobby not-too-Bright (4.00 / 2)

I noticed your vote against Children's Health Care yesterday. You recently showed yourself to disrespect women, with your vote on Lily Ledbetter, and now, you show a disregard for Alabama's children, by voting against S-CHIP. Do you know that only two so-called Democrats voted against it? Nationwide? The truth is you lied when you said you were running as a Democrat. Bad timing Mr. Bright. You will find it is a bad time to be a Republican, even one in Democrat's clothing.

It seems to me that, even if he doesn't care how people perceive him, he will at least get annoyed if we all email or mail him after every unconscionable vote.  One of only two Dems in the nation to vote against children?  Pathetic!

A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead  

---

by: piggieheart @ Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 17:34:16 PM CST

Pathetic! (4.00 / 1)

That is exactly the correct word for this vote.  Do you know how much money (contributed by partisan Democrats) the DCCC spent helping Bobby Bright get elected?  $315,986.  Imagine what might be if they had ignored AL-02 and spent that money helping Josh Segall instead?  We might have Segall in office, voting in favor of SCHIP, in a district a Democrat can easily hold in 2010, instead of Bright voting like a Republican in the vain hope the gop will cut him some slack in 2010 and not run a strong, well-funded candidate against him.  Foolish, faint hope. 

 

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 00:09:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

So far Jay Love's Will Be Done. (4.00 / 2)

.
Wondering who (Alabama Arise?) can do the math and figure out how many children in Alabama's Second Congressional District would be (would have been) affected by this.  Of course, the Bill's going to become law, so the children of Alabama will get the benefit of the extension of the program with some of their own Representatives (sic) saying, "No, we don't want that."

Of course, the question is would the Representatives who voted against the bill be willing to give whatever SCHIP program funds are due to go to their Districts to the Districts of Representatives that did vote for the Bill?

bg
_______________________________________________

---

by: BenGoshi @ Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 17:36:52 PM CST

I think we should ask, loudly and often (4.00 / 3)

Of course, the question is would the Representatives who voted against the bill be willing to give whatever SCHIP program funds are due to go to their Districts to the Districts of Representatives that did vote for the Bill?

Does Bright think the campaign is still going on?  The people of his district elected a Democrat; it would be nice if he would act like one.  Of course, now he can claim to be fiscally conservative while his constituents still benefit from expanded SCHIP.  He figures they'll never notice the cognitive dissonance, and, sadly, they likely won't.  But, if we keep asking the question, maybe he'll have to rethink his position.

---

by: Kathy @ Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 17:44:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

But Dr. Griffith voted FOR the bill. (4.00 / 2)

Was it because, as a doctor, he knows better than to vote against any kind of improved health care?

Or, did he learn something from the feedback from his abysmal showing on the Lily Ledbetter and the Paycheck Bill? Maybe, he's not too bright, but trainable.

A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead  

---

by: piggieheart @ Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 17:45:02 PM CST

Silly (4.00 / 1)

Can someone explain to me how fair pay for everyone and health insurance for children came to be partisan issues?

Can someone explain to me how protecting us from terrorists became a partisan issue? Don't be silly.  Reducing the legislation to a snappy, "Who can Oppose This" description doesn't help anyone. Whether it's the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, or the increase in the minimum wage, these legislative instruments have consequences well beyond their well-intentioned descriptions. Those consequences usually include a diminished role of the US Constitution in American government.

---

by: Dan @ Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 18:36:20 PM CST

Am I to understand that you see well children as unconstitutional? (4.00 / 1)

A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead  

---

by: piggieheart @ Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 18:57:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I guess we can only take solace that... (4.00 / 1)

Bright votes with us on organizational votes.  Otherwise, why is he even there?  No one expects him to vote for gay marriage and abortion on demand but there are not going to be any more common sense bipartisan votes than these two.  Two strikes in your first few days, Mr. Bright, you're about to strike out. 

---

by: bluebearcat @ Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 18:52:06 PM CST

Abortion on demand? (4.00 / 1)

What's that? Do you mean, a womans' right to choose?  Why would Bright ever have a chance to vote on that issue?  Roe V. Wade is the law of the land.

What are the recall laws?  Anybody know?   

 

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 00:01:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Recall laws (0.00 / 0)

None.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 00:11:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

@#$% (4.00 / 1)

Why not?

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 00:13:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

At a guess ... (0.00 / 0)

Because that would invest a certain amount of power with the people, anathema to the folks who have been running Alabama for "lo these many years."

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 00:19:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I should have put quotations... (4.00 / 1)

I was using GOP terminology to make a point about Bright's social conservatism.

---

by: bluebearcat @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 19:41:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Bobby Bright is REALLY ticking me off.... (4.00 / 1)

Off to write him another email!

---

by: hgalloway @ Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 19:58:36 PM CST

My first email to Bobby was friendly but firm. (4.00 / 1)

My next email to Bobby will not be as friendly. I am astounded by his negative vote on SCHIP. I realize there were only 1800 votes difference between him and Jay Love. Had I wanted Jay Love positions, I would have voted for him. Is Bright becoming a republican while Rogers is becoming a democrat? I applaud Rogers' vote. First thing he has done for the underdog in a long time. But Bobby, I told everyone how stubborn and dumb he was. He was a lousy fundraiser and totally relied on the DCCC to give him cash. I wonder who is advising him on these issues since he was even astounded by the cost of living in DC. He said he would never forget where he came from. Now what is that all about?

---

by: War Eagle 34 @ Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 20:10:15 PM CST

Rogers had a scare and is moving to the left as a result (4.00 / 1)

Or moving toward the center, I should say.

In the previous Congress, Mike Rogers voted against SCHIP, and voted against SCHIP, and voted against SCHIP, and voted against SCHIP.  This is a prime example of how important it is to challenge incumbents, even if the challenge is unsuccessful.  A close call can permanently shift the voting pattern of the incumbent -- Bud Cramer post 1994 is one example.  

Josh Segall deserves a big thank you from all of us.

                 Thank you, Josh!

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 00:50:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Exactly - Rogers got a big scare. (4.00 / 1)

This is a great example of how important the 50-state strategy is to the Progressive agenda.  A strong challenger and a close race makes even wingnuts more reluctant to toe the party line.

And let me add a

Thank you, Josh!

from me too!!

I'm not short.  I'm fun size!!

---

by: countrycat @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:05:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Reward him (4.00 / 2)

Everyone is quick to call or write a congressman when he votes against major legislation that we support. Perhaps if these congressmen heard positive feedback from us when they vote with us, they might understand that there are people affected by this legislation who cast votes in their districts. Perhaps we need to also send E-Mails and calls to these congressmen when they vote positively, even Mike Rogers. Can you imagine the shock when Mike Rogers gets positive feedback from his Democratic constituents? It might make these progressive issues a bit easier to support over the party line.

"Life is divided into three terms - that which was, which is, and which will be. Let us learn from the past to profit by the present, and from the present to live better in the future." - William Wordsworth

---

by: Deputy Dawg @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 06:06:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Say Thank You to Mike Rogers (0.00 / 0)

That's a good idea, Dale, Jr.  Here's how you can contact Rogers' office:

Anniston
Congressman Mike Rogers
1129 Noble Street
104 Federal Building
Anniston, AL 36201
(256) 236-5655 tel
(256) 237-9203 fax 

Opelika
Congressman Mike Rogers
1819 Pepperell Parkway, Suite 203
Opelika, AL 36801
(334) 745-6221 tel
(334) 742-0109 fax

Montgomery
Congressman Mike Rogers
7550 Halcyon Summit Drive
Montgomery, AL 36117
(334) 277-4210 tel
(334) 277-4257 fax

Washington, D.C
324 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-3261 tel
(202) 226-8485 fax

Or email Mike Rogers.  But he only accepts email from people in his district.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 12:28:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm going to just put out the notion (4.00 / 2)

That Parker Griffith may be a Chamber of Commerce vote, which would sort of kind of explain the Lily Ledbetter vote.

Mr. Bright is Chamber of Commerce plus Lou Dobbs.  Not an attractive combination.

I hope they both redeem themselves.

"The War in Iraq is not the disease. The War in Iraq is a symptom. Arrogance is the disease" - Bill Richardson

---

by: herding old cats @ Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 20:10:52 PM CST

If they don't.... (4.00 / 3)

I'll do everything I can in 2010 to make sure Bobby Bright doesn't get reelected!

---

by: hgalloway @ Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 20:24:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes - last year we did OK at the "more Democrats" part (4.00 / 2)

But not so good at the "better Democrats" part.

I'm hoping that there is potential for "improving Democrats" between now and 2010.  Maybe visits by ghosts at Christmastime, or better still, memories of thier mama's hopes and expectations for them...

"The War in Iraq is not the disease. The War in Iraq is a symptom. Arrogance is the disease" - Bill Richardson

---

by: herding old cats @ Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 20:43:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

ME TOO, HG! (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Grace @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 23:27:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Bright is already getting a national rep (4.00 / 2)

for these votes as a wingnut Dem. I think a challenge from inside the party whether successful or not could scare him a little more to the center.

---

by: gradyw @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 09:14:40 AM CST

A challenge from inside the party... (4.00 / 2)

And the sooner the better.  A strong Democratic candidate needs to start right now, talking up his failures and holding his feet to the fire for being a phony Democrat.  There is nothing wrong with announcing early that one intents to run for a seat.

In fact, it gives a person a forum, an excuse to write letters and make speeches at every turn.  I would like to see a female candidate, with real feminist and Progressive positions, start right now as the "champion of women and children ", and establish herself as the presumptive nominee form 2010.

A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead  

---

by: piggieheart @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:24:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Bobby Bright had primary opposition last year (0.00 / 0)

One of his opponents, Cheryl Sabel, was "a female candidate, with real feminist and Progressive positions."  She got 16% of the vote in the June primary and Cendie Crawley, another female candidate, got 14%.

Cheryl was a great spokesperson for the progressive agenda and a champion of women and children.  I'd like to see her run again in an environment where there's less "Bobby Bright is our only hope" handwringing from the establishment. 

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 12:24:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Exactly. And she should start soon. (4.00 / 1)

When "insiders" were telling Ben Lodmell he started running too early, he pointed out that a less well known candidate needs more time to get recognition. Cheryl Sabel is a good example.

A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead  

---

by: piggieheart @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 12:50:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sabel (4.00 / 1)

Cheryl Sabel should issue an "I tried to tell you" Press Release ASAP. 

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 15:41:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]