ThomWV
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-06-09 05:00 PM
Original message |
Why can we easily get 100% Democratic vote on a Judge but not Health Care? |
|
Puzzle me this, why was it no particular problem to get the Blue Dogs on board for the Vote on Judge SotoMayor, but they remain indistinguishable from Republicans on Health Care.
|
phantom power
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-06-09 05:03 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Because no major corporate lobbies leaned on them to vote against Sotomayor? |
Uzybone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-06-09 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
kirby
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-06-09 05:04 PM
Response to Original message |
2. What about the NRA? n/t |
BR_Parkway
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-06-09 05:09 PM
Response to Original message |
3. No one is writing checks to block a Supreme Court nominee - bribery |
ColbertWatcher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-06-09 05:09 PM
Response to Original message |
4. I was thinking the very same thing. k+r, n/t |
jody
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-06-09 05:09 PM
Response to Original message |
5. IMO less is known about the so called "Health Care Plan" than about Sotomayor. n/t |
dhpgetsit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-06-09 05:20 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Opposition to Sotomayor was pure theatrics to appease the idiots. |
|
There was no corporate opposition to her appointment like there is for health care reform.
|
flvegan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-06-09 05:22 PM
Response to Original message |
mmonk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-06-09 05:22 PM
Response to Original message |
timeforpeace
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-06-09 05:53 PM
Response to Original message |
9. If it wasn't so obviously a giveaway to the insurance industry, it might get more votes. |
|
But it's health insurance reform now, not health care reform anymore. But no one seems to care.
|
99 Percent Sure
(355 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-06-09 06:05 PM
Response to Original message |
10. I've got an even more puzzling question . . . |
|
Why have the critters just voted to allocate $200 million for new Gulfstreams for themselves, according to Jack Cafferty?
Really, your Q is easy - money talks louder than any constituent without it.
|
Umbral
(969 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-06-09 07:06 PM
Response to Original message |
12. Wait and see what happens should a liberal judge get nominated... |
|
I know, like that's ever gonna happen.
|
notesdev
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-06-09 07:53 PM
Response to Original message |
|
doesn't provide funds to a particular lawmaker's district.
Besides, this judge, by all reports, is exactly what the people who own the lawmakers want.
|
Vidar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-06-09 08:01 PM
Response to Original message |
14. Supreme Court Lobbyists are not nearly so well funded. |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 04th 2024, 11:11 PM
Response to Original message |