| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| Anh 'Joseph' Cao jolts House | |
| 2009-11-09 | |
| Once a year, Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao gives the Washington establishment a little jolt. In December 2008, the nationally unknown Vietnamese community activist captured a seat for Republicans in majority-black New Orleans, becoming an instant -- albeit short-lived -- celebrity for the GOP. On Saturday night, he handed Democrats their only Republican vote on the centerpiece of their domestic agenda, a massive overhaul of the nation's health care system that promises to enhance coverage for tens of millions of Americans and thousands of Cao's constituents. Now he's a bit of a cult hero on the left -- a profile in courage, Democrats say -- and television bookers were scrambling to find cell phone numbers for his aides Sunday. Republicans and Democrats who have worked closely with Cao in Louisiana and Washington say they weren't a bit surprised -- even if much of the political world did a double take -- when Cao registered a green light on the scoreboard in the House chamber. "I think he works hard. I think he studies things, and I think he tries to do the right thing," said an administration official who has worked with Cao. "People in the administration reach out to him a lot because he's willing to talk about things nondogmatically."
On health care, Cao met with the White House point person, Nancy-Ann DeParle, in his office and spoke to her repeatedly by phone during the past couple of months, according to an aide. President Barack Obama called him Saturday, giving Cao an opportunity to press the president to help with hospital development and forgiveness for disaster loans in New Orleans. All along, Cao was looking for reasons to support the bill, according to spokeswoman Princella Smith. But there was one seemingly insurmountable obstacle among a series of reservations: The former Jesuit seminarian was dead-set against voting for it if it expanded abortion rights in a new health care exchange. He met with members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and called Democrats to help secure their votes for the Stupak-Pitts amendment sharply limiting the use of federal dollars for subsidizing abortions, according to Smith. | |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #10 That SCOTUS has strayed from their duties, and overreached tragically, many times does not make this bill or other bills resulting from overreach unconstitutional. JMHO. Should have said: That SCOTUS has strayed from their duties, and overreached tragically, many times, does not make this bill or other bills resulting from overreach constitutional. JMHO. |
| Posted by: Don Vito Uleash 2009-11-09 12:55 |
| #9 @Cheang Peacock3599: Actually, it is you that is wrong. Yes, I know, it is called the House of Representatives and their duty is to represent their constituents within the bounds of The Constitution. One of their responsibilities is to educate their constituents that there are some things they cannot have, and should not expect. Being a Rep. does not mean playing Santa Clause and handing out goodies, it means making sure the government doesn't enslave them. Well, we see how that has gone. Don't we? If Rep's. & Senators adhere to their Oath of Office, faithfully, we would not be where we are now. I have included the Oath for your education. The Constitution takes primacy over all else, it IS the document that legitimizes the existence of our nation. Oh, by the way, hope is not a plan. I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. They are entitlement parasites, but that has not been found un-Constitutional. Nor has this bill. Nor, most likely, will it (SCOTUS finds almost all expansion of government power just fine these days.) He won't be re-elected no matter what he does and he knows it. I don't much like him, but think he made a reasonable choice here, all things considered. Glenmore, I respectfully disagree. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the State is required to support a welfare class in perpetuity. That SCOTUS has strayed from their duties, and overreached tragically, many times does not make this bill or other bills resulting from overreach unconstitutional. JMHO. |
| Posted by: Don Vito Uleash 2009-11-09 12:53 |
| #8 The anti abortion amendment to the bill was pogey bait to help get the bill passed. For the dems it was like fishing for bullheads. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2009-11-09 12:44 |
| #7 Now I think it is the Republicans who will fracture. I'm waiting for the party that will exercise fiscal conservativism, look for limited government and not be beholden to the idiots of the religious "right". The religious right are more concerned with creationism and gay marriage than they are reigning the out of control spending. Have fun losing the election after you've chased everyone who doesn't buy the modern secularist bullcrap out of the republican party. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-11-09 12:29 |
| #6 Cheang, just one more thing, not be beholden to the idiot corporate interests that run both parties these days |
| Posted by: 746 2009-11-09 12:23 |
| #5 Maybe what you're looking for, Cheang Peacock3599, is the Tea Party. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2009-11-09 11:49 |
| #4 Don Vito is wrong. His constitutional duty is to represent his constituents. That's why it is called the 'House of Represenatives'. And if you remember your history, there was a little war over taxation without representation. Towards the end of the last election, before Obama won the nomination, I was thinking (hoping) the Democrats would fracture. Now I think it is the Republicans who will fracture. I'm waiting for the party that will exercise fiscal conservativism, look for limited government and not be beholden to the idiots of the religious "right". The religious right are more concerned with creationism and gay marriage than they are reigning the out of control spending. |
| Posted by: Cheang Peacock3599 2009-11-09 10:48 |
| #3 Abortion was a moral line he would not cross, but beyond that Cao would vote the overwhelming wishes of his constituency. They are entitlement parasites, but that has not been found un-Constitutional. Nor has this bill. Nor, most likely, will it (SCOTUS finds almost all expansion of government power just fine these days.) He won't be re-elected no matter what he does and he knows it. I don't much like him, but think he made a reasonable choice here, all things considered. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-11-09 08:34 |
| #2 I disagree with his vote but I respect it. I don't! Respect his vote that is. I don't respect his constituents either. They are the entitlement parasites. Cao's responsibility is to the Constitution first, says so in his oath of office. |
| Posted by: Don Vito Uleash 2009-11-09 06:42 |
| #1 The guy's district is 75% Democrat. He only got the seat because his opponent, "Dollar" Bill Jefferson was waiting trial on corruption charges. He won't be reelected next year. But he deserves respect. Just as Blue Dogs went against their party and voted the wishes of their constituents, so did Cao vote the wishes of his. He was elected to represent his district, not the Republican party. I disagree with his vote but I respect it. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2009-11-09 02:29 |