Well, you have to hand it to him — Lynch has not only committed to climbing out on that limb, but he’s taking a saw to cut it behind him.
Earlier this evening, outside the House chamber, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) told AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka that he will oppose the health care bill tonight, despite direct pressure from Trumka that he vote for it. Trumka told me in an interview just afterwards that the vote won’t be forgotten.
“I told him how important the bill was,” Trumka said. “I started off by saying, ‘you agree with me that the status quo is unacceptable.’ Everybody has to agree with that because this system is broken.”
In response, Lynch told Trumka he won’t be changing his mind. “He said he was not going to vote for the bill,” Trumka said. That may come back to haunt him, according to Trumka.
“I’m not going to threaten people over anything–I don’t believe in doing that,” Trumka told me, before describing one potential repercussion for Lynch. “[T]hat’ll be part of what we look at when endorsements comes. This will be a big one. This will have more weight than a lot of the other little ones.”
HCR is going to pass tonight and Lynch has decided to risk political sepukku. If I were Wu or Dunkelbarger, I’d be spending this week reaching out to every union leader in the district for assistance with fundraising. These next few months are going to be very, very busy.
… after he gets booted out this November.
He can run as Tim Cahill’s LG.
The guy makes a principled decision and a lifetime of effort on behalf of Democrats gets tossed out the window. I admire the man and wish him well.
You’ve always got to be re-earning it. What have you done for your constituents lately?
<
p>This was a big time vote — clearly the biggest vote for Democrats this session, perhaps even in the past few sessions, perhaps more. Lynch is from a PVI(D) district, and is a labor guy. To not vote for HCR is just not gonna fly.
An unprincipled decision against the biggest Democratic priority in 40+ years.
And it sure wasn’t principled. He voted for it last year!
He comes across as MA’s version of Joe Lieberman in a lot of ways.
I mean, I’m sorry to keep harping on this, but I want to hear Lynch coherently explain why he disagrees with organized labor on this. Given that organized labor got him into office, what is the intellectual source of the disagreement here? What are the facts and figures he’s pointing to which support his position? This will seem principled when it appears to be based on something meaningful.
As of this vote Stephen Lynch has ceased to be a Democrat. I defended him from attacks on his abortion record, in my view one can be both pro-life and a Democrat, in fact as the party that stands up for the little guy to me it is a more natural fit than the Republican party which historically helped found Planned Parenthood.
<
p>But unlike the social issues, the economic issues are key, one cannot proclaim to be a Democrat and stand against workers, stand against the middle class, stand against the uninsured. Universal healthcare has been a cornerstone of the modern Democratic Party since the days of FDR. ‘Social insurance’ has been a key part of progressive platforms in both parties. A Republican named Abraham Lincoln thought Bismarck’s health insurance program was laudable and would have tried to implement it after the Civil War, Teddy Roosevelt held similar views. This bill is in fact to the right of the bills put forward by Richard Nixon in 1972 and Bob Dole in 1993.
<
p>To vote against this reform bill when you come from a safe Democratic seat makes you a DINO plain and simple. And its time to make this DINO extinct.
Maybe we get a Republican Congressman out of this. I’d welcome him.
His district is heavily Democratic.
I’ve no idea what it feels like to be elected to Congress–it’s probably a thrill,and it is certainly an honor, but the truth is that most members of congress (and Senators for that matter) will be utterly forgotten by all except for a few specialists, and most of the votes that they take will similarly be forgotten. Here, Lynch has chosen not to do his part in passing something truly historic. No matter what happens to him politically, and he obviously thinks he can capitalize on this stance, he will likely never get another similar chance to matter.
Whether I agree with him – or not.
<
p>Whether he is following the majority of his constituent’s wishes – or not.
<
p>Whether his vote helps him get re-elected – or not.
<
p>What makes the life of an elected official meaningful, and livable is that they follow their conscience, not vote by choosing one poll or another, or following the will of the loudest group.
<
p>Why is he choosing to vote no? Well, he could post here if he chooses and tell us all.
<
p>But, again, health care is not accessible to far too many people. It is competition that is driving up the costs – and an outmoded business model.
There is a time to think through a decision that you have to make and evaluate what is right according to your conscience.
But once a vote like the one tonight is scheduled, or a picket line goes up the question changes to “Which side are you on?”
That’s why we have labor unions and why we elect politicians. We would like them to make smart decisions, but we need them to act as a group to represent our interests.
What Lynch has done here, I would argue, is cross a picket line. I wouldn’t mind hearing his reasons, but they better be really compelling.
I have nothing against voting one’s conscience — in fact, it should happen more often. However, Lynch’s rationale simply is not coherent.
<
p>If you believe a piece of legislation is good or bad, you should be willing to get out there and explain why in a manner which is clear — especially where health care represents a major industrial interest in your delegation AND where you are effectively sticking a thumb in the eye of the folks who helped you get a start in politics. I’m simply not hearing it from Lynch.
If he has reasons, best to make them public given the fire storm from his “NO” vote.
<
p>That all being said, there is no requirement for him to explain – BUT – he has earned whatever consequences his choice creates – good or bad.
<
p>That is the other side of following one’s conscience. Sometimes, in politics, taking an unpopular stand means you get voted OUT.
<
p>In this case, President Obama has earned a place in history in this country for his successful, steadfast fight in favor of progress and more likely than not for Rep. Lynch it will be “Exit, stage left.”
<
p>One wonders if, Like Rep. Delahunt, Lynch is ready to retire?
<
p>None the less, I don’t vote for legislators or executives, for that matter, expecting that when AmberPaw OR polls say “jump” a spineless elected will say, “How high”.
I wrote two letters that appeared in local papers, praising him for voting “no” twice against the $700 billion bailout bill. His reasons were that it did not have enough protections for taxpayers and enough strings on the financial institutions. He was right. I even shook his hand and praised him on it in person.
<
p>Not this time. I think his timing is terrible. For multiple reasons – e.g. if you’re a progressive, if you care about health system reform, if you’re a Democrat, if you want to avoid Obama being badly wounded – we need to pass this (admittedly flawed and inadequate) bill now.
<
p>Obama finally has begun to fight. The bill has lots to dislike, frankly, and it also has lots to like. I especially LIKE the way Obama has finally learned to fight for something and hope it will become a habit.