Pelosi urges Dems to vote for HC reform even if it hurts their reelection chances

[PipeDaddy]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged her colleagues to back a major overhaul of U.S. health care even if it threatens their political careers, a call to arms that underscores the issue's massive role in this election year.

Lawmakers sometimes must enact policies that, even if unpopular at the moment, will help the public, Pelosi said in an interview being broadcast Sunday the ABC News program "This Week."

"We're not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress," she said. "We're here to do the job for the American people."

It took courage for Congress to pass Social Security and Medicare, which eventually became highly popular, she said, "and many of the same forces that were at work decades ago are at work again against this bill."

It's unclear whether Pelosi's remarks will embolden or chill dozens of moderate House Democrats who face withering criticisms of the health care proposal in visits with constituents and in national polls. Republican lawmaker unanimously oppose the health care proposals, and many GOP strategists believe voters will turn against Democrats in the November elections.

Pelosi, from San Francisco, is more liberal than scores of her Democratic colleagues. But she generally walks a careful line between urging them to back left-of-center policies and giving them a green light to buck party leaders to improve their re-election hopes.

Her comments to ABC, in the interview released Sunday, seemed to acknowledge the widely held view that Democrats will lose House seats this fall — maybe a lot. They now control the chamber 255 to 178, with two vacancies. Pelosi stopped well short of suggesting Democrats could lose their majority, but she called on members of her party to make a bold move on health care with no prospects of GOP help.

"Time is up," she said. "We really have to go forth."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2010/Feb/28/pelosi_to_dems__back_health_bill_even_if_it_hurts. html

Easy for her to say while she sits in her district where there are laws against Republicans being out after dark.

Oh, and LOL at the emphasized quote.

[MikeyJoe]

If she really believes that, good for her.

[Mr. Hawk]

If she really believes that, good for her.
She does not really believe that.

[MikeyJoe]

If she really believes that, good for her.
She does not really believe that.
Not the bolded quote. Of course she doesn't believe that.

Just the general sentiment that they should do what they believe is best even if it hurts their reelection chances.

[StinkyMcFadden]

Just the general sentiment that they should do what they believe is best even if it hurts their reelection chances.

In some instances, I would agree with you, but this is something they're doing for the people...problem is, none of them want it.

[TH1974]

Imagine if she had said, "Don't vote for something if it hurts your re-election chances."

[PipeDaddy]

Imagine if she had said, "Don't vote for something if it hurts your re-election chances."

Imagine if she simply told them to vote for what they believe and what their constituents support.

[StinkyMcFadden]

Imagine if she simply told them to vote for what they believe and what their constituents support.


Ring a ling a ding ding.

Make no mistake about it, this is about them, not us.

[crazed_hoosier1]

Imagine if she had said, "Don't vote for something if it hurts your re-election chances."

Imagine if she simply told them to vote for what they believe and what their constituents support.

Heh....sometimes it's worth reminding these folks what the title "Rep." in front of their names actually stands for -- and, if necessary, what that word means.

Not to sound repetitive, but I think they stopped truly caring what their constituents think about this a long time ago. With some polls showing support for passage having dropped below the 30% threshold, it's really the only way to explain why things stand where they do.

They think it'll be a short-term political cost for a long-term political benefit -- even if it's for other, future candidates. I honestly think they're going to eventually find they miscalculated. But I can understand why they think that.

They've also figured out that they're probably screwed this November either way. As such, they'd rather do something that poses potential future political gain rather than coming away empty-handed.

[StinkyMcFadden]

Not to sound repetitive, but I think they stopped truly caring what their constituents think about this a long time ago.

In the past, their constituents voted based on the letter in front of their name, so there was never a fear of being held accountable for their actions.

Hopefully, that's changing.

People don't want this, yet it's for the people. Weird.

I guess the government knows what's best for me.

[PipeDaddy]

I guess the government knows what's best for me.

That is what liberals believe.

[MikeyJoe]

I think it's an interesting dynamic. Certainly representing your constituents is important. But let's not forget that this is a republic, not a true democracy. I think our elected officials have a responsibility at some level to do what they believe is best and not just poll their constituents on every issue.

Some might argue (and I would be inclined to agree) that on this issue, their constituents are sending a very clear message about what they want, and I think that it should be listened to. But I don't think level of support back home should always be the default factor in legislative support.

[StinkyMcFadden]

But I don't think level of support back home should always be the default factor in legislative support.


I agree with this, but I also think that most the dems think the two bills are complete shit.

I'm guessing deals are being brokered right now to ensure their soft landing.

It's really a pretty nice spot for Obama and his cronies. A lot of the dems are gonna get voted out, regardless of what they do. They give Obama their support for the bill and reconciliation, whether they think it's the right thing to do or not, and he makes sure they're taken care of when the inevitable happens.

[PipeDaddy]

I think it's an interesting dynamic. Certainly representing your constituents is important. But let's not forget that this is a republic, not a true democracy. I think our elected officials have a responsibility at some level to do what they believe is best and not just poll their constituents on every issue.

Some might argue (and I would be inclined to agree) that on this issue, their constituents are sending a very clear message about what they want, and I think that it should be listened to. But I don't think level of support back home should always be the default factor in legislative support.

I agree to some extent. But I tend to think that such decisions (that are against public opinion) should usually be reserved for situations (such as foreign policy) where the public simply doesn't have the same information available to them on which to base their opinions. There could be other exceptions as well.

There is a piece I read that I may post in another thread which talks about the American people being the source of the problem with government right now. And I think that idea has a lot of merit to it.

In that sense, as the American public heads further and further down the path that de Tocqueville predicted, it will be increasingly important for politicians to vote on issues based upon the welfare of the public, and indeed the republic, instead of simply voting based upon public opinion.

[Rolo Tomassi]

They've also figured out that they're probably screwed this November either way. As such, they'd rather do something that poses potential future political gain rather than coming away empty-handed.

This is the Democratic rationale that I fear the most - "We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't, so we might as well do it." Once this monstrosity passes, there'll be no undoing it unless the Republicans get a veto-proof majority with a clear mandate to repeal Obamacare.