The blogs, sir, they have declared a fatwa, against you:

  • Buckeye State Blog: "Hey John, ever consider that maybe your sane constituents didn’t want to deal with teabaggers? Way to go John! They played you for a fool, and you were more than happy to oblige.
  • But do you seriously think that any of them will vote for you anyway?"

  • De Magno Opere (one of the best blogs that not enough people read): "Would Boccieri Have Voted Against Medicare Too?"

And, of course, us, reflecting very much the sentiment expressed by David Potts.

However, nobody, yet, had pointed out that Boccieri’s main argument: that the House bill didn’t address his constituents’ concerns about the expense of the bill and how it would be paid for.

Ironically, Bocierri’s own congressional website includes in his press release announcing his opposition to reform a link to the Congressional Budget Office’s fiscal scoring of the bill.

You know, the one that shows that the House Democrats HAD figured out a way to pay for this reform in a manner that was not only revenue neutral for the next TWENTY years, but actually would help REDUCE the federal deficit?

Do over, Congressman?

Because what you’ve done in defining your basis for voting against Health Care Reform and upsetting your base is open a new line of attack against you:  if you voted against a Health Care Reform bill that the CBO said would reduce the federal deficit and was otherwise revenue neutral, your opponents are going to ask why then did you vote in FAVOR of the stimulus plan that had no such fiscal predictions.

And you will find yourself next November arguing with yourself in the political straightjacket of your own making as the Republicans push you out of Congress.