<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <title>The Fighting 29th</title>
  <subtitle>All about New York's 29th Congressional District</subtitle>
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.fighting29th.com/2009/11/better-enemy-good-enough.html"/>
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.fighting29th.com/node/5982/atom/feed"/>
  <id>http://www.fighting29th.com/node/5982/atom/feed</id>
  <updated>2009-11-08T07:26:17-05:00</updated>
  <entry>
    <title>Better is the Enemy of Good Enough</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.fighting29th.com/2009/11/better-enemy-good-enough.html" />
    <id>http://www.fighting29th.com/2009/11/better-enemy-good-enough.html</id>
    <published>2009-11-08T07:26:17-05:00</published>
    <updated>2009-11-08T07:26:17-05:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Rottenchester</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Analysis" />
    <category term="Votes" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[<p>True to his word, Eric Massa <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll887.xml">voted against</a> final passage of healthcare reform in the House.  Earlier, he <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll884.xml">voted against</a> the Stupak amendment which restricted use of insurance for abortions.</p>
<p>In the comments and via email, some readers are wondering if this was an "insurance" vote which would help Massa's re-election among conservatives.  I doubt it, for a couple of reasons.</p>
<p>First, Massa spent much of the last few months stating his opposition to the first House version of healthcare reform.  The bill that passed last night is <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/the_debate_in_the_house.html">not fundamentally different from that first version. </a>   A last-minute reversal on Massa's part would have been surprising and difficult to defend, regardless of the politics of the final vote.</p>
<p>Second, the conservatives who don't agree with Massa on healthcare also don't agree with him on other issues, such as abortion.  They'll have no problem finding a reason to vote against Massa, even if they appreciate his vote last night.</p>
<p>Finally, the election is a year away.   By then, all the fussing and fighting over this bill will be over.  As <a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/congress/story/78519.html">this McClatchy summary points out</a>, there's nothing hugely radical in the bill.  And even if the same measure passes in the Senate (a big "if"), it still won't go into effect until 2013.   It's hard to see how last night's vote will be the pressing issue of the 2010 campaign.</p>
    ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>True to his word, Eric Massa <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll887.xml">voted against</a> final passage of healthcare reform in the House.  Earlier, he <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll884.xml">voted against</a> the Stupak amendment which restricted use of insurance for abortions.</p>
<p>In the comments and via email, some readers are wondering if this was an "insurance" vote which would help Massa's re-election among conservatives.  I doubt it, for a couple of reasons.</p>
<p>First, Massa spent much of the last few months stating his opposition to the first House version of healthcare reform.  The bill that passed last night is <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/the_debate_in_the_house.html">not fundamentally different from that first version. </a>   A last-minute reversal on Massa's part would have been surprising and difficult to defend, regardless of the politics of the final vote.</p>
<p>Second, the conservatives who don't agree with Massa on healthcare also don't agree with him on other issues, such as abortion.  They'll have no problem finding a reason to vote against Massa, even if they appreciate his vote last night.</p>
<p>Finally, the election is a year away.   By then, all the fussing and fighting over this bill will be over.  As <a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/congress/story/78519.html">this McClatchy summary points out</a>, there's nothing hugely radical in the bill.  And even if the same measure passes in the Senate (a big "if"), it still won't go into effect until 2013.   It's hard to see how last night's vote will be the pressing issue of the 2010 campaign.</p>
    ]]></content>
  </entry>
</feed>
