Posted on 11/08/2009 8:22:32 PM PST by SeekAndFind
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. And he has taken a leadership role in anti-Communist measures, meeting with the Dalai Lama when Obama wouldn't, and calling out the Vietnamese Communist government when too many these days refuse to recognize that Vietnam's mostly free market does NOT mean it is a free society. He is a thoughtful, principled, well-intentioned public servant.
He also represents a district that is fundamentally liberal. Congressmen have two roles: they are delegates, meaning their voters delegate to them the ability to use their judgment on complicated policy matters; and they are representatives, meaning they are there, specifically, to represent the will of their constituents. Serving in Congress is often a balancing act: When your district slightly favors one course of action but you strongly favor the opposite, you do what you believe and try to explain to your constituents why you bucked their wishes. That is being a delegate.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
If he’s pro-live and anti-Commie’s then he’s okay by me as that’s my prime reason for voting Republican.
Same smell. Maybe it’s osmosis.
If Cao “listens” to his constituents the same way Jefferson did, why not run as a Democrat. That’s the most logical thing to do. Whereas, running as a Republican means doing the tough thing by “..........teaching them how to fish so they can feed themselves forever” as we used to say in Nam.
It’s nonsense for us to support RINOs who will only follow the same Democrat plan for their constituents.
Well, with references to how ‘smart’ this was, that the French Quarter provides higher ground for more enlightened understanding of the district, failed seminarian, and the obvious put up job in a small mutual admiration society . . .
. . . I am getting some whiffs of KY jelly in the mix too.
Could be wrong, and it really doesn’t matter.
What matters is the unconstitional encroachment on the rights of us all.
If Cao “listens” to his constituents the same way Jefferson did, why not run as a Democrat. That’s the most logical thing to do.
He will. As others on this thread have predicted he will pull a Scozzafava after gaming the GOP for all he can get.
I’ve had issues with American Spectator in the past. I don’t subscribe to it any longer since I can read this kind of mealy-mouthing in Newsweek, or Time or any other liberal rag.
Figures. Republicans get no more money from me until they get their act together. Besides, I kinda like the more expensive Scotch I can now afford.
His district is a STY damnit!!!
There are no Democrats representing a district as heavily tilted towards the other party as Cao is doing for the GOP (as Impy pointed out, the "solid Dem" regions of the country are alot more solid than the solid GOP regions of this country... there are urban areas that give Dems 95% of the vote but even the staunchest part of flyover country would never give vote 95% GOP).
But when it comes situation, voting with the GOP on some high profile bills but voted with the Dems on Obamacare some other major economic legislation... the situation is no different for Dem Congressman in super GOP district's. Cao's district has a PVI rating of a +28 Democrat than the rest of the country. The Dem is the most lopsided GOP district is Gene Taylor, he's Trent Lott's former house seat in Mississippi which has a PVI rating of +20 (not as strongly Republican as Cao's district is Dem, but still pretty lopsided GOP majority). Taylor votes with the GOP on most issues but he refuses to switch parties, and yes, Taylor voted AGAINST Obamacare, as did most Dems in districts that are majority GOP by double digits.
I could probably make a good case that Cao votes with us on major issues more often than Taylor votes with the Dems on major issues, even though Cao's in a district harder for his party to win. But I can't be sure without having data on all of Cao's votes and that won't be available to Jan.
Bottom is the Dems in heavy GOP district "acquiesced" to their constituency on health care just as Cao did. I'm not saying that was the right thing to do, or that I justify Cao's vote, just saying that's the reality. I agree it won't earn him any sympathy from the left. Whether Cao votes with the GOP 100% of the time or 0% of the time, the Dems in district will hate him and demand his head on a platter simply because he's not a black Democrat (Mark Kirk and Joe Lieberman do the Dem's bidding on most major issues, and they basically hate them for shaking hands with President Bush once). But here's the thing... if Cao had vocally opposed Obamacare the Dems could motivate more Dem turnout by running ads about how "mean ol' Republican Cao and his racist Republican supports want granny to die from cancer". That would motivate Dem to turnout against him in droves. The same would be true in reverse for Taylor's district... Republicans who show up on election day are going to vote against no matter what, but if he voted in favor of Obama care, Mississippi conservatives would be up in arms and beat down the door to defeat him. In both cases, low turnout helps the incumbent win re-election in his district.
I get ticked off at conservatives who say we should give Peter King a pass for being a RINO douchebag because he's from "blue state New York" (nevermind the fact HIS district voted AGAINST Obama), but I can really see the difficulty of trying to represent a district so lopsided against you. I wouldn't vote in favor of Obamacare, but neither would I give the Dems ammo by speaking out against an issue the leftist constiuency clearly wants.
He knew damned well that pro life amendment was going to be stripped from the bill in the end.
NO EXCUSES
“If Cao “listens” to his constituents the same way Jefferson did, why not run as a Democrat.”
I respect your view - it’s a tough call for me, but keep in mind that Cao probably figured that he NEVER had a prayer of winning in that district - so he was in quite a jam, once he did win.
BULLBUTTER!!!
That sorry sap-sucker waited to cast his vote till the last second!!!
That way he could go back to his district and placate the dunderheads back there with this ONE vote!
He assumes he is safe for 2010...
That’s ok...He can live in that bubble till then...
Not to defend dnowball, but her vote was a committee vote and it made the count 14-9 vs 13-10.
It was symbolic in that she was the only pubbie to vote it out of committee but it had no real effect on the outcome.
Not to defend snowball, but her vote was a committee vote and it made the count 14-9 vs 13-10.
It was symbolic in that she was the only pubbie to vote it out of committee but it had no real effect on the outcome.
There needs to be no other explanation other than he set aside what is good for the country in exchange for keeping his job.
Gretchen and Dave did an awesome job of interviewing him this morning.
The "bi-partisan" vote was against obycare. Ramming through a unwanted bill, by three votes, one of them an R vote is not a victory.
It's a shame the article couldn't support the proposition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.