U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Michael Bennet

(D) Phil Weiser

60%↑

50%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Jena Griswold

(D) David Seligman

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) J. Danielson

(R) Sheri Davis
50%

40%

30%
State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(D) Jeff Bridges

(R) Kevin Grantham

40%

40%

30%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(R) H. Scheppelman

(D) Alex Kelloff

70%

30%

10%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Trisha Calvarese

(D) Eileen Laubacher

90%

20%

20%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Shannon Bird

45%↓

30%

30%

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
November 08, 2009 07:07 PM UTC

Bye-Bye Betsy

  • 40 Comments
  • by: JO

Fact: Markey voted against the health care bill in the House in what was clearly a show-down.

Question: Why bother to send her to Congress as a Democrat if she’s going to join the Republicans when push comes to shove? So what if she’s re-elected? Is it going to matter? Manifestly not.

Comments

40 thoughts on “Bye-Bye Betsy

    1. Make it clear to Markey that she is NOT going to get ANY support from Democrats, neither on the national nor the state level, in order to clear the path for someone else who might otherwise be discouraged at the prospect of a primary in which incumbency counts for everything. Hmmmm, where have we heard that before?

      Time to send the message: NOW, while it can still reverberate as an example of party discipline, enforced.

  1. JO, is there a single elected democrat in this state you have not proposed primary-ing? Just one? Somewhere?

    First off Betsy’s job is to represent the people in her district – all of them. Her job is not to represent you, and only you. And since the voters in her district have not (yet) attended JO’s re-education camp, they’re opinions tend to be to the right of yours.

    Second, the democratic leadership gives members in competitive districts a pass to vote against when their vote is not needed for passage. Why? Because there is great value in those democrats being re-elected.

    What is that great value? Number one is their vote for who runs the house – the majority has almost absolute rule in the house. Second, when every vote is needed, they can usually (not always) be called on to vote as needed.

    Third, Betsy is a thoughtful representative who is doing an awesome job. I’m not always going to agree with her (or anyone else in office), but I will take her over any alternative.

    1. BO is running around the country, telling which dems to resign posts, which dems to run in primaries?  Because he gives dems a ‘pass?’

      IMO, Markey’s vote and the vote by party line is a large blow to BO’s attempts at partisanship, his programs in general, and his political message. He has wasted months trying to achieve bipartisanship and can’t even keep dems in line.  Not only is he unable to sell the program to some repubs, Markey can’t even sell it to her constituents.  Amazing failures, given the problems people have had with health care.

      I hope BO drops his obsession with bi-partisanship and moves on with the rest of his agenda.  

      I would expect the same thing that happened in New Jersey and Virginia to happen to Betsy.  I really feel badly for the dems who worked their butts off for her who expected her to support BO’s agenda.

    2. There are clearly conflicting views here of the meaning of “representative” democracy.

      My view: Citizens elect a delegate (“representative”) who goes off on a Big White Horse to Washington to consider and vote on legislation. Said representatives are then held accountable at the next scheduled election.

      Alternate view: “Participatory” democracy, in which every citizen votes directly, as in, say, New England town meetings–or their elected “representative” is expected to do so on some basis or other (opinion polls? Internet online votng? Something new?). We could apply that to the national parliament, but for whatever reason(s), we haven’t, at least not yet. [And, given my perception of the general level of political sophistication, God help us if we ever did!]

      Markey, of course, wasn’t expected to represent me since I don’t live in her district. At the same time, residents of CD4 voted for a Democrat over a Republican, and can reasonably expect to have the elected representative vote with the Democratic party virtually all of the time, and most especially in a key show-down. Elected politicians often campaign on the grounds of “Elect ME,” rather than “Elect the Democrat,” and persuade themselves that it was an affinity, if not passionate love for themselves as individuals that persuaded the majority to vote for them. (This belief is often set aside when trying to raise funds from people organized along party lines….)

      As for “purity,” yes, I see political parties as being of enormous importance because it is there that some coherence is achieved when reconciling conflicting interests in a way that meets the common good.

      No time now to go into the basics of parliamentary democracy except to observe (not opine) the fact that political parties are a universal property of parliamentary democracies, and that the real contest over positions goes on–or should go on– inside those parties. When politicians disregard the party consensus, as Markey did on health care, they are effectively saying: “I’m what counts, I’m looking out for my interests.” Fine, Betsy; but don’t expect people acting as Democrats to let you off the hook.

      As for: “should woulda voted the right way if it had counted,” well, that’s (a) conjecture; and (b) makes me wonder, why vote nay instead of present?

      OK, time to telecommute on my new 2-day-workweek, 24-hour workday schedule!

      1. and took a lot of shit for it from conservatives. It was a much closer vote that was less popular among her constituents. She’s there when Democrats need her.

  2. but Markey is there “when push comes to shove.” This vote wasn’t it. Pelosi decided a bare majority was good enough, and gave everyone else a pass. I think if Markey had been needed to make the bill pass, she would have voted yes.

    1. As a favor, could you remind me of a “push came to shove” vote in which Markey voted with the Democrats even while perceiving that her vote would make her unpopular in CD4? Thanks.

      1. I don’t know how many votes we’ve lost by 1 or 2 or 3; we’ve got 258 votes in the Democratic Caucus and we need 218 of them to pass legislation.  Leadership seems to think 220 is sufficient, and is willing to let the conservaDems and others who think they need to vote their own way go their own way so long as the majority is maintained.

          1. Takes us down the same road the GOP is presently following (to oblivion).

            The majority of people in this country are not liberal. Even many liberals are conservative in that they don’t like change. If we take this tack we’ll be racing the GOP for irrelevance.

            In addition, I’m very uncomfortable with having political purity tests. A lot of what us liberals propose turns out to be sub-optimal at best. And many things proposed by conservatives turns out to work well.

        1. If Pelosi had told her to vote in favor, Markey would have voted yea. Since (supposedly–evidence forthcoming, no doubt) Pelosi said it was okay to vote nay, Markey voted nay, following her (a) conscience; (b) conservative fiscal analysis; (c) sense of what would play best in a tough reelection bid.

          CD4: Meet your new representative: Nancy Pelosi. Nancy speaks, Betsy squeaks.

          That’s a great slogan!

            1. As it was, Nancy gave her the night off. But if cap comes to trade, Betsy will be back in line! (Note that we didn’t seem to be hearing that defense from Markey herself! I haven’t run her post-nay comments so far.)

              Is that a defense to take to the polls?

              Whatever happened to persuading the constituency? Is CD4 beyond persuasion?

              1. But according to the Washington Post, Markey’s record of voting with the Dems is 94.5%.

                Just a tad higher than old Musgrave or any likely R’s would be in her place.  

                Sure, purity sounds good.  But the voting record of a “real” Democrat in that district would be 0% because they couldn’t get elected in the first place.

                Please feel free to resume your rant, now.

                  1. for all the 2008 Congressional freshmen [sic]. They do it for Kathy Dahlkemper and Lynn Jenkins too. Longer-serving Congresswomen get gender-specific pronouns.

          1. Bows to DeGette?  You bet!

            Will she screw us?  Depends on Lewis!

            That’s all I have.

            Pelosi doesn’t count votes.  I assume the permission to vote against came from one of the whips, once they knew they had enough.

    1. 1. IF you’re not running for office, don’t say anything.

      2. IF you don’t live in CD4 you can’t say anything about that race since you can’t run for office in that district.

      3. If you’re running in CD4, don’t solicit support from people who live in CD2 who might otherwise be ringing doorbells on weekends etc., since they’re not entitled to say anything about who ought to be in the race.

      4. If you want to be persuasive, seek to achieve new heights of persuasion with every passing day. Use all the tools at your command: Write with a sophisticated literary style that will humble those who disagree with you. Make up quotes from whole cloth and attribute them to those with whom you disagree; if challenged, blame Bing, errr, Gecco, err, Oogle, or, well, you know, whomever, for failure to turn them up. Appeal to reason and logic. Latest: “Put up or shut up.” Stunning! Buster Brown’s Brain Builder gel caps for everyone! Take one down, pass ’em around, cheers! (Feel free to take 2 or 3 tablets if you think you need them.)

      But seriously, I feel I learn so much from posts like yours! They make this site so valuable as a source of sophisticated, well-reasoned thinking! Many, many thanks.

  3. I think this diary would be warranted if it didn’t pass but the fact is, it did and I think it’s a bit obvious that she knew it would pass and could make her seat a bit more safe if she voted against it.

    You should put up one of those teevee ads about this. Maybe someone will primary her and her D majority voters will come out against her.

    Oh wait. That’s not going to happen.  

    1. “…make her seat a bit more safe if she voted against it.”

      Die-hard Republicans will vote for a Republican if the candidate is acceptable and lacks Musgrave’s many, many drawbacks. Voting against the Democrats on this one bill will do nothing to make Markey’s reelection more likely among that group, which can read right here that Markey votes for Democrats 94% of the time (I guess).

      Die-hard Democrats will be disgusted, are disgusted. This wasn’t any old issue, any old vote; it is an issue on which Democrats promised action and, watered-down though it may be, may yet manage to deliver results and on which Democrats can campaign in ’10. But not Betsy. She voted against health care reform, while still being stuck with the record (according to someone on a different thread) of voting with Dems 94% of the time–but not this time.

      Die-hard “Independents” may wonder, with good reason, Does Markey vote based on her calculation of what will make her election more likely, or, as you put it, “…she knew it would pass and could make her seat a bit more safe if she voted against it.” Who knew it would pass? Who gave her a pass? Who determined how she would vote? [Caution: Commentators under 18 are advised not to try this slide; it is extremely slippery.]

      Challenge her in a primary? Probably not. After all, there’s the First Democratic Commandment: “Love thy incumbent as thyself.” Getting Democrats to walk the Waak next year may be a different matter. Would that I had your powers of foresight.

       

      1. Actually, JO, I posted it above (with link to the Washington Post) yesterday evening.

        That Markey actually considers her votes is what representing her district is all about.  The fact that her judgement agrees with the Democrats and the independents in her district much of the time is a good thing.

        As for my selective response to you on the other thread, I learned a long time ago to pick my battles.  Successful politicians like Betsy Markey do too.  

        Last week, she could afford to make a point about fiscal conservatism (although I strongly disagree with that priority right now, I don’t represent her district either).

        She’ll get another chance to vote on the bill if and only if it makes it out of the Senate, and hopefully something workable comes from the conference committee.

        Then it’ll be time to close ranks and apply all the pressure and persuasion you are advocating.  Maybe she’ll even win back both of the “die-hard Democrats” in her district that she “disgusted” last week.

        1. That’s exactly my point.

          –Of five Democratic representatives from Colorado, just one voted ‘no.’ I assume such passes are requested. I wonder whether CD3 is all that much more liberal than CD4? Is that why Salazar didn’t need a pass?

          –By requesting a pass (assuming that’s what happened in the scope of possibilities), she voluntarily (a) gave the Republicans a debating point (“Even Markey thought it was a bad bill, and a real Republican will block other bad ideas too”) and (b) deprived herself of a campaign platform plank (“I helped pass health care reform”).

          –As many others have observed in other places, she opened herself to charges of opportunism–“I vote based on my calculation of what’s best for my reelection.” OR, “I requested a pass to vote no based on….”  Of course, she didn’t say that; not at all. She said she voted no because the bill cost too much and she’s an emerging deficit hawk. Therefore, if we take her at her word, she decided that the place to start combating the deficit was in health care, rather than, say, agricultural subsidies, military spending, etc. And if that’s what she thinks, then who needs a Republican in CD4?

          –Finally, last thought on Cap and Trade. Elsewhere it’s argued that Markey voted for Cap and Trade, another close bill (219-212, with 7 Democrats voting no, versus 220-215 on health, with 44 Democrats voting no), and her C&T vote offsets her health care reform vote. Aside from the relative publicity and perceived importance of these two bills in daily life, does her vote for Cap an Trade really offset her vote for health care reform? Suppose the issue had been gay rights instead of health insurance? Or wilderness preservation? If Markey had voted against gay rights, would she successfully argue that she voted for Cap and Trade instead? OR, funding for Afghanistan vs. Cap and Trade.

          The bottom line will be seen one year from now. Who can say for sure what the issues will be then? Skyrocketing casualties in Afghanistan, God forbid? Twenty-four percent effective un/underemployment? Or even just 17.5% next November? On the other hand, it’s not too hard for me to see some Democrats, albeit leftwing Democrats, who have to choose how to spend their time and money in the ’10 election and being turned off by Markey’s decision on health care.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

117 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!

Colorado Pols