… and Lord knows why. I don't get it. Maybe just a finger in the eye to labor, who didn't get behind him for Senate because of his reluctance to support the public option. That would be a weird reason. Maybe he was still feeling Scott Brown Fever. Don't know. Here's the roll call; see for yourself.
See you in September, Steve.
Please share widely!
cos says
If we get Harmony Wu into this race, coming closely on the heels of Connie Saltonstall vs. Stupak, and Bill Halter vs. Blanche Lincoln, and labor recruits someone to run against Michael Arcuri, there’s a coordinated wave of challenges starting that could create the potential to protect and strengthen this reform, and perhaps pass a public option. I had a post up on OpenLeft this morning about this:
<
p>Primary Pressure Pattern Forms on Health Care
cos says
BTW, a brand new Draft Harmony Wu web site is taking shape.
smalltownguy says
Pathetic. But see my post for a perfectly convincing explanation.
cos says
According to congress.org’s map of the roll call, every single member of the New England delegations voted Aye, except Stephen Lynch.
rhondabourne says
I am among the few, but if I do not consider his next election, I would look at Lynch and say he is the only one who stood on principle not to vote for a bill without a public option What happened to all these congress people saying they would vote no on a bill that had no public option. Steve Lynch in MHO is right to say this bill does nothing to address costs and little to nothing to stop insurers and providers from their shenanigans. Sorry, if I were there I would have voted NO for all of the reasons I have stated. This bill is too little too late, too few teeth and way too much given away to get it passed. I take no pride in its having been passed and to compare it to social security, medicare and medicaid is foolish.
cos says
That’s a very strange take on it, because last year, Lynch wouldn’t support a public option despite a lot of his supporters asking him to.
rhondabourne says
I was not aware that he had no supported the public option, but, Lynch’s personal political motivations aside, I was speaking to the value of the bill and the good reasons to have voted no. What happened to the movement not that many weeks ago to get reps and senators to vote no if there were no public option.
<
p>We do not know what we want and we are willing to accept far too little. The issue became a fight to pass a bill and the content of the bill became less important. I am curious to see how it will all play out. By 2014 the political and economic landscape of this country may be far different when the health insurance mandate goes in to effect. The major issue I see with health reform is that our economy is very dependent of the health care industry and the insurance industry. You cannot bite the hand that feeds you, no matter how hungry you may be.
stomv says
<
p>The economy is absolutely dependent on the health care industry — for one thing, it’s able to hire folks of every skill and education level, and distributes those jobs across the country. For another thing, it plays a non-dominant but important role in the industries of IT, engineering, science research, textiles, and dozens of other things as well.
<
p>More importantly to “the economy” is that the health care industry keeps people performing at as high a level as possible, thereby able to produce more emails and lattes and painted interior walls and clean dishes and wills and repaired fenders and everything else.
<
p>That’s the half right.
<
p>
<
p>The half wrong: the health insurance industry. These guys make nothing. They’re candlestick makers and horse and buggy technicians and typewriter repairmen and coopers. These are exactly the folks the economy doesn’t need — they slow down productivity because they cost money and produce nothing of value to anyone else. Note that I inserted “health” — other insurance industries do provide value — they serve to set an exchange rate on dollars:risk. It’s important to be sure. But health insurance? Skip it and lets just do the health care portion, and eliminate oodles of people who aren’t helping people get healthy, ranging from the executives to the billing staffers. All of these people could be doing something else, something productive. The money going to pay them could be returned to the customers, who could spend it on whatever it is they want.
rhondabourne says
If all the people you say are not needed were laid off en mass, what do you think would happen?
nospinicus says
Lynch voted no, Lynch gotta go.
trickle-up says
Like the proverbial generals, Lynch is preparing to fight the last war. He’s perfectly positioned himself to turn back a challenge from Scott Brown in 2009.
<
p>Thank goodness that time marches on.
stomv says
at the bottom of a CNN article:
<
p>
<
p>So, that mountain of debt part… the CBO dissgrees. But more to the point, I’m glad he opposes something that will pass, because that means he either (a) supports some other controversial Democratic legislation between now and 2012 in hopes of getting reelected, or (b) gets waxed in 2012. Of course, I’m hoping for both (a) and (b), but I digress.
af says
where did multi trillion come from? Oppose the bill, if you want, but at least use facts, not emotion exaggerated rhetoric.
stomv says
but CBO scored it as not adding to the debt, which is why reconciliation is allowed in the first place. Am I missing something?
theloquaciousliberal says
After voting no on the bill itself, Lynch reversed course and was the only Congressman to switch his vote to “yes” on the “fix-it bill” (the reconciliation bill):
http://politics.nytimes.com/co…
<
p>I’d be curious if any of the smart minds here can come up with a rational explanation for Lynch’s unique decision?
<
p>I don’t get it.
hoyapaul says
I can think of is that Lynch plans to run for Senate in 2012 (something a number of other BMG’ers have speculated), and will use his no-yes flip vote as a way to waffle on the health care issue depending on the 2012 national political environment.
<
p>Of course, “I voted against it before I voted for it” isn’t exactly a winning strategy.
theloquaciousliberal says
Of course, “future political ambition” is always a compelling reason behind elected official’s votes.
<
p>But, in this case, I can’t see that it can possibly be a “winning strategy” behind waffling in this way.
<
p>And, apparently, there are 396 Members of Congress who agree with me and a total of zero other members who agree with Lynch?
trickle-up says
The bill passed, and even though Lynch opposes it the fix makes it less bad (from his point of view). Slam dunk, no contortions required.
<
p>OTOH it will be interesting to see how Republican’s rationalize their votes against fixing things like the Cornhusker Kickback, etc.
theloquaciousliberal says
I can understand that he wants to make this argument. But the fact that he is the only Congressman to vote no/yes (no Republicans, none of the other 30+ dissenting Democrats) sure seems strange to me. He is the only one who saw this as the “slam dunk” approach”?
trickle-up says
Look, suppose you are in Congress during Bush II and there’s a vote to cut taxes for the rich.
<
p>You vote against it (I would anyway), and it passes, but then suppose that for whatever reason there’s another bill that tweaks the first one in basically good, if minor, ways. Makes some tax breaks smaller, or harder to qualify for, or something.
<
p>What do you do? I vote for it with no compunctions. Doesn’t mean I like the result, just that I prefer the second bill to pass given that the first one already did.
<
p>Slam dunk.
<
p>Anyone who says I’m therefore a flip-flopper or waffler or whatever just doesn’t get the legislative process.
<
p>Now I think Lynch is a calculating ninny and deserves what I very much hope he has coming to him. But there is nothing opaque or head-scratching or inconsistent about what he did, on his terms.
<
p>There were two separate votes on two separate bills. He voted no one one because (he says) he’s against it. He voted yes on the other because, by his lights, it made things a little better that they would be if the second bill failed.
hrs-kevin says
I am sure he got a lot of calls from pissed off constituents like me over the weekend and hopes this will mollify us. It won’t, of course.
cannoneo says
If he thought the Senate bill was lousy, watched it get voted in without his support, then voted in favor of the reconciliation fix as something that makes the now inevitable law better.
<
p>I think Occam’s Razor on these votes points to obstinate independence rather than electoral calculation. I don’t like the way Steve Lynch thinks on several issues, but I think he’s honest.
ed-poon says
I dont want to take anything away from Harmony Wu, but I think we’d want someone with a true base of political support if we’re going to take on an incumbent in a low-turnout primary. It would also likely be preferable if this person was from the southern part of the district (Norfolk Co / Brockton).
merolph says
People keep asking about the “someone else” with whatever list of qualities – So, where is this person? I’ve been asking this question about a challenger for Lynch for a year at least. Harmony Wu has stepped forward to consider a serious run – and I support her 100%
ed-poon says
Let me start by saying that having multiple candidates against him is the kiss of death. We learned that in 2001.
<
p>What about Brian Joyce? He’s got a base of support in the district to start with (his state senate district takes up a good chunk of MA-09) and he has been around long enough to know how to campaign.
<
p>Marian Walsh might have been a good choice, if not for an, ur, unfortunate episode last year.
theloquaciousliberal says
What I am looking for in a “serious” challenger is someone with actual “qualifications” and the experience neccessary for the office.
<
p>Harmony Wu is not a lawyer and “town meeting member” appears to be her only elected office. She admits she had “little political experience” before becoming an Obama volunteer in 2008. With this epxerience and qualifications, she is barely qualified to run for State Rep let alone for the U.S. Congress.
<
p>How about one of the District’s State Senators (Timility, Pacheco, Joyce or Walsh)?
<
p>There are also several qualified State Reps (many with over a decade of experience in politics) who might want to take on Lynch. Brian Wallace?
<
p>Flaherty and Yoon (I think) both also live in Lynch’s district and have actually been elected to City Councilors-at-Large positions(just like Dunkelbarger).
<
p>As a Democrat, I would be embarrassed if “Professor” Wu turns out to really be the best we can do in offering a real challenge to DINO Lynch.
donrolph says
I suggest there are two issues to consider here:
<
p>1) can Harmony get elected
<
p>2) can Harmony actually participate effectively in the legislature
<
p>I believe that Stephen Lynch himself demonstrates that the two need not be correlated.
<
p>With respect to electability, I respectfully suggest the following:
<
p>a) Harmony has a very strong and highly dedicated set of volunteers who are willing to work very hard for her and at this point they have honed their abilities in several elections
<
p>b) Add to this that she is not a political incumbent
<
p>I could perhaps continue, but I suggest this is a very powerful set of electability qualities.
<
p>The more interesting question of course is whether she can participate effectively in government. And, I suggest, there are precious few qualifications which can be used to measure this reliably.
<
p>I will add one more point. Harmony Wu has shown the grit to call Lynch’s vote for what it is and to begin what is effectively the only process which can truly make a point regarding his vote.
<
p>Where were others in the last few days when it became increasingly clear that Lynch was going to vote no? Did any of them rise to challenge Lynch directly in the only way that counts?
jkw says
The easiest time to take on an incumbent is in a low-turnout primary. Lots of people won’t bother voting for the incumbent. But the challenger’s supporters tend to be more motivated. This is part of what let Scott Brown win.
<
p>I believe that the base of support is people who wanted health care reform. It will hardly matter who the opponent is. The main question is whether anything will come out about Harmony that would make her unelectable.
sabutai says
But people with narrow bases of support do well in Massachusetts lately, and people with state-wide chops (Coakley, Reilly, Healey) don’t.
theloquaciousliberal says
Scott Brown is essentially a career politician and has been an elected official since 1992 when he own his first race(property assessor). Then he has also successfully ran in 1995 (Board of Selectmen), in 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2002 (State Rep), in March 2004, (special election for State Senate), before being re-elected to the Senate in November 2004, 2006 and 2008.
<
p>Deval Patrick is a very unusual case of getting elected Governor in his first real campaign, However, he was elected president of the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau while still in law school in in 1981. He then worked in variouls legal jobs (as a clerk, for the NAACP and in private practice) for twelve years before being appointed in 1994 by Clinton to Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division. He then worked again in “private practice” from 1997 until his succesful “outsider” campaign for Governor in 2006. Though Governor is his first elected office, he brought over two decades of a highly-politicized legal career to the table. And the chance for Massachusetts to elect only the second African-American Governor in history.
<
p>Harmony Wu is apparantly now a “Town Meeting member of Needham” and her own bio says she “had little political experience before she took it upon herself to organize Needham for the Obama campaign in 2008.” Now she has apparantly left her job as an Emerson professor on “media and cultrue” and is a “volunteer health care reform organizer.” Please.
<
p>Ms. Wu, with all due respect, isn’t qualified to run for U.S. Congress.
sabutai says
I talked about statewide cachet. Brown did have some understanding in his little corner of Mass., but nowhere near the name recognition of the attorney general. Ditto to the current governor.
<
p>I am not arguing about Ms. Wu’s qualifications, but rather a recent tendency in Massachusetts to ask less elected experience of candidates than one might expect.
theloquaciousliberal says
My point was that Brown had a great deal of “elected experience” before his Senate victory. If he was only a “town meeting member” and “volunteer corrdinator,” he would never have been seriously considered as a candidate for U.S. Senate.
<
p>Patrick is an unusual case, but (apart from 2006 being his first campaign for elected office) he was also unsually well-qualified for the position as a Harvard lawyer with 25 years in a poltical/legal career. His “outsider” image was also especially helpful after 16 years of Republican Governors and Big Dig politics.
<
p>I’m pretty sure I’m not the only person that believes a candidate needs more than a token two years of volunteering and at least a decade if actual election, legal and/or political experience to run for U.S. Congress.
merolph says
The hard and fast list of “qualifications” for any elected office tends to be a very malleable list. I have never seen a list of absolute requirements for US Congress, other than the very minimal age (over 25), and residency requirements. The necessary qualifications tend to match the resume of the candidate one is supporting. I agree with sabutai on the “recent tendency in Massachusetts to ask less elected experience of candidates than one might expect.”
<
p>And, I would challenge the assertion that Scott Brown would not have been seriosly considered for Senate without his professional politician status. I don’t remember hearing about Scott’s legislative record during the campaign. But I sure remember hearing about Cosmo, Ayla’s American Idol run, his truck and jacket and his opposition to taxes. In other words, if Scott had been a private practice lawyer and town meeting member in Wrentham, I agree he wouldn’t have met the CW picture of Senate candidate, but given the climate I think he still would have done quite well.
theloquaciousliberal says
<
p>A small majority of U.S. Senators are lawyers (I think it’s 56 out of 100 or therabouts). Over 1/3 of U.S Represenatives are lawyers.
<
p>Without conducting an exhaustive review, I would hazard to guess that the vast majority of the remaining held at least some real elective office (not “town meeting member”) prior to running for Congress.
<
p>Al Franken is the one unusual exception I can come up with. But he started his own Political Action Committee in 2005 (three years prior to running), graduated cum laude from Harvard with a B.A. in political science, was the author of five best-selling polticial books, and has “poltical” experience as an SNL writer and radio talk show host.
<
p>Can you, or anyone, name a single other U.S. Senator or Congressman who is neither a lawyer nor held any prior elected office?
stomv says
First person I thought of, actually.
stomv says
he, like Al Franken, has a remarkable and public career prior to his run to be a Congressman despite not having a law degree nor having been elected to a lower public office. John Glenn is yet another man with a remarkable and public career who had neither a law degree nor had been elected to lower public office.
theloquaciousliberal says
But they only reinforce my underlying argument about Harmony Wu’s candidacy.
<
p>McCain served as the Navy’s liaison to the U.S. Senate beginning in 1977 (and for five years) prior to running for Congress in 1982. Two sitting Senators served as groomsman at his 1980 second wedding. He was a famous POW before running, the son and grandson of 4-star Admirals, targeted an open sear, and still never would have won had he not married in to a rich and poltiical powerful Arizona family.
<
p>John Glen was a WWII fighter pilot and the first man in space, and served 24 years and become a Colonel in the Marines before running for office. Moreover, he first decidedi to run for Senate in 1964 before dropping out of the race after an accident. In 1970, he was defeated in the Democratic primary. He then ran again in 1974 (against an appointed seat-filler) before finally winning.
<
p>Harmony Wu’s resume doesn’t compare favorably to those of these two war heros.
cos says
First of all, a technicality: Harmony Wu does hold elected office.
<
p>However, there are definitely some members of Congress who did not have a law degree or elected office before they ran for the US House. And a background as a community organizer or political grassroots organizer is especially valuable (that’s the main reason Donna Edwards was a serious candidate, for example, even though she did have a law degree). Some who are currently in office that I can think of off the top of my head…
<
p>I’m sure there are plenty of others I either don’t know of or am not thinking of at the moment.
theloquaciousliberal says
I worked for Donna Edwards in D.C. at her 3-person non-profit in the mid-1990s. Let’s just say two of us were lawyers and it wasn’t the college intern.
<
p>Donna is a public interest lawyer of the highest order and she had a decade of commendable legal/poltical experience(in 2006 when she first ran and again in 2008).
<
p>After law school, she co-founded the National Network to End Domestic Violence, an advocacy and legal support group for battered women. She used her legal background to help pass the 1994 Violence Against Women Act.
<
p>Though she is also a “community organizer” of the highest order, it was her legal abilities that launched and sustained her career.
<
p>Carol Shea Porter is a great example for your side, though she did have a Masters in Public Admninistration (a great alternative to a J.D.) and many years of experience teaching politics in D.C. before running.
<
p>I don’t know but will examine the resumes of your other examples. Thanks for the dialogue.
donrolph says
I have commented on this earlier, but I on the criterion of whether she has the potential to win, I suggest that under the present situation, and in the absence of others seriously challenging Lynch, her campaign is potentially very viable.
<
p>If you ask can she operate in Congress? Given the performance of a number of the people in Congress, it would seem she would have a very low threshold to meet.
sco says
$100K in the bank would go a long way to showing that she’s qualified.
<
p>If she can show she can raise money, she is more likely to be taken seriously.
donrolph says
I suspect it would best if she did not raise money until she had formally announced her candidacy.