Dude, that's trivial. Follow the process, and you'll have no need to ask such questions. There are a lot of them, starting with Baucus, who initially supported the public option. I especially liked the latest move of Senator Snow.
And neither one of them are up for election in 2010. Reread my comment about the election is more than a year away and the Gallop poll is pretty dynamic (when it was showing a lot of support for Obama's plan before the town hall meetings, I'm sure you were whistling a different tune).
Well, when it was showing a lot of support for Obama's plan, somehow more Congress folks were willing to vote for that plan. Now there are not enough votes for anything but reconciliation, and Obama's last hope for "bipartisanship" died when Snowe turned away. Be my guest and demonstrate that these two phenomenons are not connected.
Unlike you, people in Congress know that such a vote can surface even in ten years and hurt a lot.
Ten years with the American voting public? Oh the LOLz! Really, can you cite a specific vote by any Congressional Senator that cost him an election over ten years later, or this another case of you talking out of your ass? President Obama could care less about elections ten years from now; he's worried about the 2010 elections and holding onto his majorities. The two Senators you specifically cited aren't up for re-election then.
The Senate bill was just released this week, the ammendment process will start next week, see just like the Gallop polls, the process is a dynamic one, it's changing. So if Snow has changed her mind before, what's to say a newer bill wouldn't be more appealing to her after the changes? Besides-- her vote only matters until Kennedy's replacement is named shortly. The Massachusett's state house is moving quickly on a bill allowing the governor to name someone much sooner than you'd like.
I said "hurt a lot", not "cost him an election". Such examples we all know. There were votes for Iraq war (Hillary paid dearly for that six years after the vote), or for FISA support (was a substantial problem for Obama), that were surfacing again and again. McCain votes on immigration issue costed him a noticeable part of his base.
That's just most visible stuff.
Regarding all the rest - we'll see. Voter's mood is not the only factor the Congress folk take in consideration.
Anyhow, your attempt to claim a complete independence of Congress folks from their constituents amused me a lot. It's kind of typical for liberals.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
telemann.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
politicartoons2009-09-17 09:31 am
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
And neither one of them are up for election in 2010. Reread my comment about the election is more than a year away and the Gallop poll is pretty dynamic (when it was showing a lot of support for Obama's plan before the town hall meetings, I'm sure you were whistling a different tune).
no subject
Unlike you, people in Congress know that such a vote can surface even in ten years and hurt a lot.
no subject
The Senate bill was just released this week, the ammendment process will start next week, see just like the Gallop polls, the process is a dynamic one, it's changing. So if Snow has changed her mind before, what's to say a newer bill wouldn't be more appealing to her after the changes? Besides-- her vote only matters until Kennedy's replacement is named shortly. The Massachusett's state house is moving quickly on a bill allowing the governor to name someone much sooner than you'd like.
Next......
no subject
That's just most visible stuff.
Regarding all the rest - we'll see. Voter's mood is not the only factor the Congress folk take in consideration.
Anyhow, your attempt to claim a complete independence of Congress folks from their constituents amused me a lot. It's kind of typical for liberals.