Rep. John Boccieri (D-OH) is one of those two-dozen or so House Democrats who voted for the restrictive Stupak abortion amendment, and then turned around and voted against the overall bill. So it’s no surprise that he’s leaving Democrats in his district the distinct impression that he’ll remain a ‘no’ even if the final health care bill closely resembles the less-progressive Senate bill.
Boccieri met with 26 local Democrats recently to explain his vote. Here’s a first hand account from readers DB and JK:
“In his remarks and answers to questions, Mr. Boccieri reminded everyone that before his election in 2006 the district had not been represented by a Democrat for more than half a century,” the readers write. “He also mentioned several times that he had carried the district by eleven points while President Obama had lost it by four. So the politics of HCR was clearly on his mind as he defended his vote.”
His focus on the political implications of his vote was reflected in much of what else he said during the two hours he spent with us. For example, at two different points in the meeting he talked about his constituents’ concern about the cost of HCR but never once mentioned that the House bill had been scored by the CBO as being likely to reduce the deficit by over 100 billion dollars over the next ten years.
He also twice talked about the mandates in the House bill and told the audience that the fines on citizens who did not comply with the mandates could total thousands of dollars and result in jail terms of up to five years but never mentioned the fact that mandates were necessary in order to broaden the policyholder base and therefore make it possible to insure people with pre-existing conditions at an affordable premium. He also never mentioned how unlikely it was that anyone would ever be jailed for not complying with the mandates. In response to a specific question from one of us, he denied that the vote of the Democratic Members against the bill had cost the HCR effort precious momentum even though the headlines which followed the House vote focused on how narrowly it had passed the House and on how it was DOA in the Senate.
In sum, Congressman Boccieri gave anything but an energetic defense of HCR at this meeting. Indeed, a number of his comments to the group sounded suspiciously like the Republican talking points against HCR that have been circulating during the last several months and are sure to repeated ad nauseum in the year ahead. We are preparing for the distinct possibility that he will vote against the final bill which emerges from conference and for the likelihood that such a vote will cost him his seat.
We’ll say still a no. You can read the entire dispatch below.
Josh:
You asked for reports from the field about what Democratic Members of Congress who had voted against the HCR legislation were telling their constituents who asked about their vote. Because we attended a meeting John Boccieri (OH-16) held recently to discuss his vote, we can give you such a report.
We are both Democrats who supported Mr. Boccieri when he ran in 2006. Both of us made substantial (for us) campaign contributions to him. One of us held a house party to allow him to introduce himself to local Democrats because he had never represented our part of the district in the previous state legislative office he held. And both of us canvassed for him. So we are Democrats who constitute what should be part of his natural base of support.
And we were both deeply disappointed not only in his vote but also in how he tried to justify his vote in that meeting.
The meeting was held in a room at a local restaurant and was attended by twenty-six local people who wanted to meet with him to hear him explain his vote on HCR. (As you know, he voted for Stupak but against the bill.) Between the two of us, we recognized almost everyone at the meeting as a party regular.
The Congressman began the meeting by speaking for about twenty minutes about his reasons for his vote and then he took questions. In his remarks and answers to questions, Mr. Boccieri reminded everyone that before his election in 2006 the district had not been represented by a Democrat for more than half a century. He also mentioned several times that he had carried the district by eleven points while President Obama had lost it by four. So the politics of HCR was clearly on his mind as he defended his vote.
His focus on the political implications of his vote was reflected in much of what else he said during the two hours he spent with us. For example, at two different points in the meeting he talked about his constituents’ concern about the cost of HCR but never once mentioned that the House bill had been scored by the CBO as being likely to reduce the deficit by over 100 billion dollars over the next ten years. He also twice talked about the mandates in the House bill and told the audience that the fines on citizens who did not comply with the mandates could total thousands of dollars and result in jail terms of up to five years but never mentioned the fact that mandates were necessary in order to broaden the policyholder base and therefore make it possible to insure people with pre-existing conditions at an affordable premium. He also never mentioned how unlikely it was that anyone would ever be jailed for not complying with the mandates. In response to a specific question from one of us, he denied that the vote of the Democratic Members against the bill had cost the HCR effort precious momentum even though the headlines which followed the House vote focused on how narrowly it had passed the House and on how it was DOA in the Senate.
In sum, Congressman Boccieri gave anything but an energetic defense of HCR at this meeting. Indeed, a number of his comments to the group sounded suspiciously like the Republican talking points against HCR that have been circulating during the last several months and are sure to repeated ad nauseum in the year ahead. We are preparing for the distinct possibility that he will vote against the final bill which emerges from conference and for the likelihood that such a vote will cost him his seat.
