Time to WHIP Scott Murphy's undecided @$$ (D-NY20) on HCR

Tips for the WHIP (4.00 / 2)

not let's get to it, and if you do get in touch with Scott Murphy's office in DC let us know how it went here.

Cheers

---

by: MinistryOfTruth @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 14:05:57 PM CST

The bill just passed. PASSED! But Murphy voted no. (4.00 / 1)

Yay Obama. Yay Pelosi. Boo hiss, Murphy.

And lest anyone say that he "had to" vote against it to appease conservatives in his district? Congressmen in far more rightward-leaning districts voted in favor. Full map at:

http://politics.nytimes.com/co...

---

by: Hudson @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 23:11:01 PM CST

Primary Season Begins Now (4.00 / 1)

Murphy was the candidate only because he pledged a chunk of his own money to finance a campaign on short notice.  He had no particular history that earned him the loyalty of Democrats in the 20th CD.  He has now proven himself to be someone who has no loyalty to the most fundamental principles of the Democratic Party.  The District has been getting bluer, and the Democratic Party is getting stronger at the grassroots level - we won several local contests last week.  It is time to begin recruiting a candidate who will truly represent the District in Congress.  There is no need to keep Murphy any longer.

---

by: prince nekhlyudov @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 23:35:09 PM CST

Too Quck To Judgment (4.00 / 1)

Shouldn't we find out why Murphy voted no before condemning him? Kucinich voted no too; I don't think most people here would be calling for his head for not being progressive enough.

In addition, we don't know what the internal politics of the House were. It could be that there were members who would have voted yes if their votes were really needed, but once there were 218 solidly in favor then those in tough districts could have the latitude to vote no. It's hard to know whether some of these no votes would have switched if the chips were down. And if it helps Democrats stay in office to vote yes on other issues where those votes are needed, then it's not a bad strategic move.

I'd want everyone to vote yes on health care too, but I'm not going to agree with even my own representative on every issue, much less someone else's. And I think we should have the full picture on this issue, plus the many other issues that Murphy will vote on, before passing judgment.

---

by: dsimon @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 00:07:45 AM CST

For Example.... (0.00 / 0)

Just adding that Murphy voted for the energy bill, which passed by only 219-212 (and 8 of the yes votes were from Republicans). This was a very hard vote for some Democrats in swing districts, and some of them feel it was a mistake to make them vote on energy first and then move onto a difficult and divisive health care debate. The political reality is that there are only so many tough votes one can make without getting replaced by someone who will consistently vote against the way most of us would like.

Now, I don't know how what effect a yes vote on health care would have made on Murphy's reelection chances for 2010. And I don't know if his vote may have been because the bill does too little (as Congressman Massa apparently believes) rather than too much. I'm just arguing that these are factors that may be taken into account. There's a bigger picture here than just the health care vote on its face, as important as that issue may be.

---

by: dsimon @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 00:25:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't Want to Hear Bullshit Rationalizations (4.00 / 2)

Murphy got elected for only one reason - he had a "D" next to his name.  Nobody knew very much about him, but he seemed like a nice guy and he said that he supported the fundamental principles of the Democratic Party, including healthcare reform.  So Democrats in the District went to the mat for him because we didn't want to lose the seat.  Now Murphy has had his chance and he blew it - big time.  No one can claim that this bill is perfect - there are a million reasons that you could dream up to vote against it.  But one reason trumps them all - the country desperately needs healthcare reform and this bill is the only game in town, and it makes enormous strides in the right direction.  Democrats in the District now have the time to select a better candidate, one who can both win the election and support Democratic principles.  Murphy has demonstrated that he is not that candidate.

---

by: prince nekhlyudov @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 00:45:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Reasons, not Rationalizations (0.00 / 0)

prince n: "the country desperately needs healthcare reform and this bill is the only game in town, and it makes enormous strides in the right direction.  Democrats in the District now have the time to select a better candidate, one who can both win the election and support Democratic principles."

Why is there the assumption that a candidate who more supports "Democratic principles" would win the district? Special elections are odd things, but Murphy barely won as is. Gillibrand didn't win by much her first time against a scandalized opponent. This is not a liberal seat, at least not yet.

I know health care reform is important. But insist on ideological purity on all important issues and we're going to have NY-23 in reverse, and even less will get done. And the fact of the matter is that this vote did not sink the legislation. Unless one is a one-issue voter, the whole picture is what should matter.

---

by: dsimon @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 07:53:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

What Makes You Think (4.00 / 2)

That this will in any way help get Murphy re-elected.  It he has to run against healthcare reform, he is going to lose.  If the voters want to vote for somebody who will push the Republican agenda, they generally vote for Republicans.  Murphy proved himself to be both a tool and a fool.  Quite an accomplishment.

---

by: prince nekhlyudov @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 08:31:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

you DO know (0.00 / 0)

that dsimon is a Republican, right?

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:12:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

ok maybe not. (0.00 / 0)

s/he's permanently stuck in my head as the guy who posted a few long trips against the site for being a one sided partisan blog instead of a news source. Guess I misread into that.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:19:53 AM CST

[ Parent ]

That Added A Lot To The Debate (0.00 / 0)

Engaging in speculative personal attacks doesn't advance the argument or change anyone's minds.

And you have no idea how much I've done to help get Democrats elected.

We just have a difference of opinion as to what representatives can and should do. I'm in favor of the House bill. I can also understand why some Democrats in swing districts had a difficult vote.

I have my idealism. And I also understand that politics is the art of the possible.

---

by: dsimon @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:40:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Shall we also wait for evidence of the Tooth Fairy? (0.00 / 0)

So, let me get this straight:

You want us to simultaneously believe that Murphy objected to the health care bill for the same purist reasons as Dennis Kucinich (tacking to the far left) and also that he voted against it because his district is conservative (tacking to the far right)?

Please. Some people will make allowances for anyone with a D- after their name, no matter how absurd.

Murphy is clearly not Kucinich. He's also in a much bluer district than other reps in New York State and elsewhere who did vote for what is both right, and what is best for the Democratic Party.

But I guess you didn't bother clicking the map link provided above.

---

by: Hudson @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 00:26:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not What I Wrote (0.00 / 0)

prince k:"you want us to simultaneously believe that Murphy objected to the health care bill for the same purist reasons as Dennis Kucinich (tacking to the far left) and also that he voted against it because his district is conservative (tacking to the far right)?"

I never said it was simultaneous. I wrote only that there were various possible justifications and that we didn't know what the reasons were. I agree the two are exclusive; but either one could be used to justify a no vote, even if we happen to disagree with it.

I prefer knowing the whole story before passing judgment. Could be one story, could be the other. Could be that neither story satisfies everyone. But I'd like to know it first.

---

by: dsimon @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 07:45:44 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Correction (0.00 / 0)

My mistake to attribute the above quote to prince n (with the typo) and not to Hudson.

---

by: dsimon @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 08:13:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Nah. I'm not bending over backwards to avoid the obvious (0.00 / 0)

Murphy said last summer that he wanted health care reform, he just wanted to make sure it wasn't going to bankrupt us. He used this excuse to help delay a vote last August, handing the GOP and the lobbyists a victory. But once it was well-established that reform would save money, Murphy just capitulated to Blue Dog triangulation theories that will only hurt him in 2010.

---

by: Hudson @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:06:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Baloney (4.00 / 1)

Anyone who voted against this should be primaried, I am not letting Kucinich off the hook, nor Massa, nor anyone else who claims "the bill didn't go far enough."

This was a tough vote, we all had to bite down hard and take things we didn't like. Murphy has no excuse.

---

by: Davidsfr @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:13:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

No Excuses (4.00 / 2)

If I lived in Kucinich's District, I'd favor a primary of him too.  Being "Progressive" is not the point - it is a question of judgment.  Murphy showed abominable judgment on the most important issue of our generation.  If he had a track record or history that would have earned him the loyalty and respect of Democrats in his District, then there might be a reason to hesitate.  But there is no such history.  It is really nothing more than a fluke that he is in Congress at all, and as far as I'm concerned, replacing him is really a no-brainer.  Murphy has failed his constituents, his party, and his country.  A successful primary campaign takes time to organize.  It is not too soon to begin.

---

by: prince nekhlyudov @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 00:19:34 AM CST

Im willing to give Murphy a break (0.00 / 0)

He voted yes on the energy bill, which was a very tough vote.  

---

by: Sean @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 00:44:28 AM CST

Here's how it works: (4.00 / 1)

Scott Murphy "has to" vote against crucially important Democratic bills, so that he can get re-elected, so that he can have the chance to "have to" vote against more crucially important Democratic bills for another two years.

Yeah, that's really going to motivate his base of campaign donors and volunteers in 2010. I guess he can make it up with corporate contributions and robo-calls.

---

by: Hudson @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:08:13 AM CST

Here's How It Really Works, And The Record So Far (0.00 / 0)

Hudson: "Scott Murphy 'has to' vote against crucially important Democratic bills, so that he can get re-elected, so that he can have the chance to 'have to' vote against more crucially important Democratic bills for another two years."

First, he voted for the "crucially important" energy bill, which was a close and tough vote for many Democrats in swing districts.

Second, "represent" is a part of the word "representative." I appreciate it when those in Congress put their seats on the line for principle, but there's only so many times they can do that and get reelected. And that's how it's supposed to work. In our system, ultimate responsibility rests with the people, and representatives are not supposed to be completely free actors, especially in the House--at least that's what Madison, Hamilton, and Jay thought in The Federalist Papers.

"that's really going to motivate his base of campaign donors and volunteers in 2010. I guess he can make it up with corporate contributions and robo-calls."

Murphy is a cosponsor of the Fair Elections Now Act, which would provide for public campaign financing and drastically reduce corporate contributions.

Sure, if someone consistently votes against all the party's major objectives, then that person is pretty useless to the party. But I don't see that we're anywhere near there yet.

---

by: dsimon @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 08:11:26 AM CST

[ Parent ]

What's so "tough" about his energy vote? (0.00 / 0)

If you have a brain, and you actually choose to use it to justify a correct vote, and use your bully pulpit to convince voters (rather than being a poll-driven non-entity), it's not "tough" at all.

You just need to be a politician with a teeny tiny bit of spine.

---

by: Hudson @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:08:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I Agree In Part (0.00 / 0)

I want more leadership on the part of our elected representatives too. I'd like to see them try to move public opinion rather than cater to it.

But what if they try, and their constituents remains unconvinced? Should the representative do what she or he thinks is right, or is it the duty of the representative to represent? I've seen many people in Congress who I think are more liberal than their districts and are thereby constrained in their voting. And I don't pretend that it's an easy issue.

---

by: dsimon @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:44:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Here's What's Tough About The Energy Vote (0.00 / 0)

What's tough about the energy vote is that it's easily spun into a pocketbook/tax issue which makes for any easy campaign ad. "So and so voted to raise your energy bill--in the middle of a recession! So an so is just another tax-and-spend liberal who wants government to control your life!"

It's a lot harder to make the argument that if one really believes in energy independence, in reducing the strain on our military, in freeing our foreign policy, and in protecting the environment, then one should be willing to actually do things to achieve those goals--and that what the energy bill asks from the public is pretty minimal. The energy bill is going to be subjected to the lies and distortions that have plagues the health care debate.

I agree that our elected representatives should use their positions to make those arguments. But it's a lot easier to promise a free lunch and absolve voters of any responsibility for the consequences. After all, it worked during the Bush years even though it's not a sustainable form of government.

So in terms of policy, the energy bill should be a pretty easy vote. But politically, it may not be so easy in many districts.

---

by: dsimon @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:04:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

If Voters Believe Lies and Distortions (0.00 / 0)

They will vote for Republicans, they won't vote for a cowardly "Democrat" who doesn't have the guts to stand behind the key element of the Democratic Party agenda.  Voters will say, if I want to vote Republican, I'll vote for the real thing, not the faux version.

---

by: prince nekhlyudov @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:12:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

That Doesn't Address The Issue (0.00 / 0)

You asked why the energy bill was a tough vote. I explained it. I don't think your response refutes it.

I wish things were otherwise. I wish voters were better informed. I wish fewer of them had such knee-jerk reactions to certain trigger words. I try to do my best to help change these things.

But it's a hard fight. So it remains that in many districts today, the energy bill was and is a tough political issue regardless of how good it may be on policy. And wanting more "guts" doesn't change that political calculus.

---

by: dsimon @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:48:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

How can you not know what was tough about cap and trade? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: nrafter530 @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 19:32:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What Basis Do You Have (4.00 / 2)

For asserting that healthcare reform is unpopular in NY20?  I don't know of any.  Is Murphy planning on an anti-HC reform platform?  That is a strategy guaranteed to lose.  Democrats need to nominate somebody who can win.

---

by: prince nekhlyudov @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 08:37:34 AM CST

Exactly. (0.00 / 0)

Those who say Murphy "had to" vote against it are the same people who thought Gillibrand "had to" bash immigrants to win re-election, or "had to" help George Bush get more money for the war.

---

by: Hudson @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:09:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

That's crap too! (0.00 / 0)

I am furious with Murphy for his vote, but I wouldn't have defended Gillibrand if in fact she had done the things you say (just can't get over your irrational hatred of her, huh Huds?)

One can make the case Gillibrand needed to vote for gun rights to hold the district, but the district is not anti-health care reform, and not even anti-public option. There is simply no analogy there.

I didn't turn on Murphy when he voted against the Cash for Clunkers extension even though I thought it was a terrible vote. But this is the hugest issue we may ever see voted on in Congress. Murphy wasn't there for us, two can play at that game.

---

by: Davidsfr @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:26:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You were doing well (4.00 / 1)

up until that incorrect comment.

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 11:42:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

And What Basis Do You Have? (0.00 / 0)

What basis do you have for asserting that healthcare reform (specifically the House bill) is popular in NY-20?

I am perfectly willing to defer to people who know more than I do. In this case, I'm assuming Murphy knows his district better than I do. Of course I'm always open to the possibility of being wrong, as we all should be.

"Democrats need to nominate somebody who can win."

Agreed. We just disagree on who can win. And if we lose, we'll endanger a lot more than health care legislation. I'm just arguing that all of these factors should be considered.

---

by: dsimon @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:33:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Murphy Is From Missouri (0.00 / 0)

He hasn't lived in this District very long.  We got stuck in a position where there was a suprise special election.  We had to get a candidate in a hurry, and Murphy came forward with a lot of money.  Democrats rallied around him because he was a Democrat, not because of anything special about him.  He is eminently replaceable.  He should be replaced.

---

by: prince nekhlyudov @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:59:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Living In The District (0.00 / 0)

"He hasn't lived in this District very long."

His bio says he worked for Advantage Capital Partners for 8 years before the election, which is based in Glens Falls where he now lives, so I assume that's where he's been during that time. If that's not long enough, what is? Does one have to be a native to the district? And his wife grew up in Washington County. Seems to me he has plenty of ties to the area.

Personally, I don't care where someone is from. I care about the job they do. (My votes regarding Hillary Clinton for Senate had nothing to do with how long she had been a New Yorker.) Someone from far away can do a great job, and a local can do a lousy job. Those who think Murphy isn't doing a good job are free to vote against him in a primary or a general election. But it seems to me that for those that care, he's been in the area for long enough that it shouldn't be a factor.

---

by: dsimon @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:41:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Cuz it is (0.00 / 0)

just like it is in the rest of the country.

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 11:43:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The Stupak Amendment Was Odious to a Lot of People (0.00 / 0)

who voted for the bill anyway. THAT was the single best reason to vote against it, but even that needed to be overlooked to advance the bill. There is no reason Murphy would have to vote against the bill that would be greater than that.

---

by: Davidsfr @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:29:13 AM CST

Thank You Immensely Bill Owens (4.00 / 1)

if you could vote for the bill, Murphy has absolutely no excuse!

---

by: Davidsfr @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:34:54 AM CST

That Makes My Point, In A Way (0.00 / 0)

We got Owens because the right wing ran a candidate that forced the moderate Republican out of the race.

If we had done the same, we'd lose seats. That approach might have sunk health care reform if Democrats had adopted it the past two years because Democrats wouldn't have the votes today.

Heck, there were a lot of people who were complaining that Owens was too conservative to be a Democratic selection for the seat. I wonder whether a more down-the-line liberal would have won it, given how close the election was against a pretty hard-line conservative. I'd speculate Scozzafava would have voted no, and Hoffman would certainly have been a no.

I think we should we wary of Club-For-Growthing our own party.

---

by: dsimon @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:53:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

False Analogy (0.00 / 0)

Nobody is talking about running a 3rd Party candidate (at least I'm not).  I'm just talking about letting the Democrats in the District select a candidate who will be electable and support the Democratic Party agenda.

---

by: prince nekhlyudov @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:02:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Thrid Party Candidate Not The Issue (0.00 / 0)

The analogy is not about a third party; it's about where the principal candidates line up and who will win the seat in the end. (The Club For Growth has generally been trying to primary-out moderate Republicans, not run third party candidates, but there was no other option in a NY special election.)

And the Republicans essentially did have a primary: Hoffman forced Scozzafava out. The common wisdom (which might have been wrong) was that Owens was better off in a 3-way race, but it turned into a head-to-head matchup anyway, which even then he barely won against an opponent who was not a moderate.

"I'm just talking about letting the Democrats in the District select a candidate who will be electable and support the Democratic Party agenda."

I'm all in favor of letting the process chose the candidates. I'm just submitting the possibility that insisting that the nominee "support the Democratic Party agenda" down the line may result in fewer votes for the agenda in the long run and therefore getting less of that agenda through Congress. I doubt that Owens will be voting with the party on every important issue, but I'm skeptical about trying to primary him out over it because I think there's a good chance that someone who did vote the party line down the line would not win in NY-23--and then we might have Hoffman instead. Even Scozzafava would have been under a lot of pressure not to buck party leadership.

There needs to be a balance between supporting the agenda and winning seats. There's no sense in having someone who doesn't support any aspect of the agenda in the seat, but there's also little sense in running someone who supports all aspects of the agenda but can't win in the district. And how these concerns balance out for the good of the national party agenda can be complicated. I'm just arguing that these concerns should not be determined on one vote.

---

by: dsimon @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:19:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Do You Honestly Believe (0.00 / 0)

That if Murphy had campaigned on opposition to healthcare reform, he would have been elected?  I know something about his election.  He got enormous support from the Democratic base, particularly unions.  This has been the key that has been turning this District blue -  Gillibrand twice, we voted for Obama, and then we voted for Murphy.  It's starting to filter to the grassroots with local Democratic victories.  Our Representative in Congress should be a leader in the process, not somebody who thinks he can run away from the most important Democratic legislative initiative of our time.  I want to primary Murphy not to achieve ideological purity, but to achieve victory.

---

by: prince nekhlyudov @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:30:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

How Do We Know? (0.00 / 0)

"That if Murphy had campaigned on opposition to healthcare reform, he would have been elected?"

First, I don't know Murphy's district. Second it may not be fair to construe Murphy's vote as "opposition to healthcare reform."

Massa is a supporter of health care reform, but he thought the House bill gave away too much to private insurers and didn't do enough to control costs, so he voted no. That no vote doesn't make Massa an "opponent" of reform; it's the product of a legitimate critique that can be made regardless of where one is on the political spectrum. And I don't think Massa can be accused of "running away" from this important issue just because he voted no. We needed to know his reasons for doing so, even if we disagreed with them. One could even construe his vote as courageous if his constituents want "reform" but he thinks this bill, however superficially enticing, won't deliver it (not that I'm adopting that position).

My main point is the one I made in my first post: that we should avoid a rush to judgment. We don't know why Murphy voted the way he did, and I hope he will tell us. Perhaps Murphy's vote was political (helpful to get him reelected in a tough district for Democrats, so he can help on other issues). Perhaps it was based on policy (he thinks its in the best interests of his constituents even though they favor "reform" in the abstract). But without knowing his reasons, I think it's slightly premature to be calling for his head on a platter--unless one starts calling for Massa's too. (Massa seems to push the limits of what his district will take; should he be primaried over this vote?)

It's not even been a day since the health care vote. One thing I do know: Murphy isn't dumb. Given that, I'd like to know why he voted the way he did before deciding whether I thought he had good reasons or not. And even I disagreed with his reasons, I'd want to look at a wider strategic picture (was his vote necessary, would someone else win the seat) before concluding that primarying Murphy would be helpful to the party's goals.

And as far as achieving "victory," I'll point out that his vote, like Massa's, did not prevent the House or the party from moving forward on this issue. If they had, I'd be complaining a lot more.

---

by: dsimon @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 11:47:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Murphy had no excuse for not being (0.00 / 0)

front and center in favor of healthcare reform at least a few days before the vote. I would have liked to have seen him take the stand right after the August recess. I went to a couple of events where hcr supporters outnumbered the teabaggers--he did not need to oppose the bill for reelection, not even close, it will hurt his reelection that he did not vote for it.

---

by: Davidsfr @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 15:31:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]