RSSUS Senate Rejects Obamacare Repeal Along Party Lines 51-47
GAME ON … OBAMACARE A HUGE POLITICAL ISSUE FOR THE 2012 ELECTIONS …
In a vote directly along party lines, the repeal of Obamacare in the US Senate was voted down 47-51. The election game in in in the run up to 2012 as no Democrats present yesterday voted for the repeal of Obamacare. Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Mark Warner (D-VA) were not present. This will play out as a major political issue heading into the 2012 election season. As previously stated, Democrats must defend 23 Senate seats in 2012, many in “red” states, including vulnerable Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin (WV), Claire McCaskill (MO), Jon Tester (MT) and Ben Nelson (NE). Their continued position against the will of their constituents in their states will prove to be interesting in 2012. As tweeted by the Gateway Pundit, even Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill voted against the repeal, even though 71% of the “Show Me” state was in favor of the repeal.
The Senate on Wednesday voted down a repeal of President Obama’s healthcare law in a 47-51 party-line vote.
The vote came two weeks to the day the Republican House voted 245-189 to repeal the law, and just days after a federal judge ruled Obama’s signature legislative achievement is unconstitutional.
How much longer can Democrats continue to be on the wrong side of Obamacare against the will of the American people and continue to hold the majority in the Senate? The question will be answered in the 2012 election. Barack Obama has stated he has wanted to move on from the issue of Obamacare and will not consider repeal; however, We the People and the Courts seem to have a differing opinion.
Posted February 3, 2011 by Scared Monkeys 2012 Elections, Barack Obama, Ben Nelson (D-NE), Healthcare, Joe Manchin (D-WV), Obamacare, Obamanation, Senate | 8 comments |
If you liked this post, you may also like these:
Comments
8 Responses to “US Senate Rejects Obamacare Repeal Along Party Lines 51-47”
Leave a Reply
Claire McCaskill’s presence is just wrong for
the ‘Show Me’ State, the Country, and Freedom.
Why was she elected in the first place, to
ignore what the People actually want and what
the Constitution prescribes?
When a law has been declared ‘Unconstitutional’
by a judge, it is no longer a law!
I am sure that the Democrats will try to downplay this healthcare law. I think the president himself will run on promises of revision as he has already stated. The costs of this law for each household and when those costs will come has to be made known to all American people. The Republicans will have their work cut out for them. We need facts not politics and it should be stated as facts.
Democrats are like the Titanic full speed ahead.
As I understand this, Missouri voted in Aug 2010 to deny the government the authority to penalize citizens for refusing to buy private health insurance.
Also, the Senate, as part of an amendment to the FAA reauthorization bill, had a procedural vote yesterday to waive following something in the “Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010″, along with the “Congressional Budget Act of 1974″, which needed a 3/5 vote for success. The vote was 47-51, which was not enough, and the amendment failed (AFAIK).
Now, the question for me is: how are these two events correctly linked, given the nature of what was actually being voted on. One was effectively the citizens of MO dropping the mandate from the federal ACA law. To me, MO seems a bit removed from changing federal law.
The second was a procedural motion on an amendment to repeal ACA, that failed to pass. In fact, there never was a vote on the merits of the amendment. Kinda reminds me of the past two years, these procedural votes failing.
I doubt I’d call the MO vote against the mandate an indication they were in favor of full repeal, nor does the failure of a procedural vote represent a vote on the merits the amendment. Votes that failed cloture (less than 60) repeatedly can subsequently pass with overwhelming majorities in the end.
________________
SM: Of course you would not. Not only did polls in MO state overwhelmingly that they were against Obamacare prior to the 2010 election, the vote that took place did as well. At some point Steve you have to know when to pick your battles and not defend ever Democrat, moonbat position. It makes you lose credibility.
http://scaredmonkeys.com/2010/08/04/happy-birthday-barack-obama-missouri-votes-no-to-obamacare-show-me-state-votes-down-proposition-c-and-mandatory-insurance/
Obamacare was an issue on the table in 2010 and in MO, they went big against it. You can’t have people in a mandate against Obamacare and then have them vote that way and not say they don’t want it repealed. Sorry, but Claire McCaskill will be in huge trouble for this vote.
Oh, by the way did you see the latest Rasmussen poll, 58% – 38% for the repeal of Obamacare.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
#4: and they are heading for the iceberg FULL SPEED AHEAD. we will get to see this crash and sink !
As it happens, I’m not trying to defend every Democratic position, or even any position, for that matter. I’m trying to examine the actual events, and not allow interpretations to affect the process. I find this a very credible course of action.
In this case, the original article had no mention nor links of MO polls, so of course I didn’t consider that kind of data. I am confident I was correct in doing so. If new evidence is offered, then it can be considered.
I find it a plausible interpretation that voting down the mandate in MO was equivalent to wanting it repealed. That doesn’t mean I accept it as true, which I don’t. I fully accept Prop C. as worded and the subsequent voting results. Recent polls that focused on how Americans perceived the Affordable Care Act (ACA) had much clearer information on voters position and what should be done next. When given expanded choices such as full repeal, partial repeal, keep as is, do more with it, and so on, there is no majority that wants full repeal. So I can clearly see how one could not want the mandate, but could want to keep the law. That is how I see this vote.
As far as vote margins (71%-29%), these seem to closely match the Rep-Dem vote margins for many of the primary races, making it seem likely that the lopsided ACA vote was attributable to voter party affiliation. Recent Presidential results show that the state has a generally even party distribution among voters, so future voting may or may not be so easily predicted so far in advance (for 2012).
Rasmussen poll results are not really all that credible or indicative. Due to the way they ask such a simplistic repeal question, it limits the response choices to exclude doing more, or leaving it alone.
__________________
SM:
sm(7),
I appreciate any help in uncovering evidence on this topic. As it turns out, I had apparently clicked on this link, as I had already seen the STL Today story.
As it says, the vote went 71% against the mandate. When I search the page for the word “poll” nothing is found. Scanning the text visually leads to no info on MO polling.
Are you sure this is the page you wanted to share?
BTW, I also went to Gateway (again), and checked it as well. Similarly for the link on Gateway to Flopping Aces (again). I found no references to MO polls in either case.
Sorry.