Carper votes against preventing cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid

Filed in National by on December 3, 2017

Tom Carper always touts his “ability to work across the aisle” and “build bridges” with his “Republican Partners.”

But look at his track record. His ability to “work across the isle” completely sucks. Sure he is great at voting with the Republicans when it comes to screwing his working class constituents, but he NEVER gets his Republican friends to reciprocate.


About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (61)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Alby says:

    Aisle. Altho, given that he’s alone in his delusions, maybe isle is better.

  2. mediawatch says:

    Ted Kaufman’s column in today’s NJ — — explains one aspect of this pretty well:

    Suddenly, one side of the argument says that there can be no discussion, no give-and-take, on the tax issue. Period. Itโ€™s as if, instead of each side starting on their own 10-yard line and negotiating to reach the 50-yard line together, one side moves to the 50-yard line at the very beginning and then says, ok, letโ€™s negotiate the remaining 40 yards on your side.

    When Carper negotiates with Republicans, his aim is to not let them get past his 20 yard line. He never scores, but he gives up a lot of field goals.

  3. chris says:

    Tom Carper needs to read the former Senator Tom Harkin story in the NY Times today. About Senators needing to step away from the Senate after a long career and provide younger people and new blood am opportunity to serve.

  4. bamboozer says:

    Kind of surprised that other big fan of “reaching across the aisle”, Chris Coons, didn’t join Carper in selling us out. At this point I think Carper, Coons and a great many others live inside the Washington bubble and not with the rest of us in the real world.

  5. RE Vanella says:

    I’m going to Carper’s Wilmington office in person today to yell at somebody face-to-face.

  6. RE Vanella says:

    Just spoke to Landon Bailey in Carper’s Wilmington office. I said I was there to voice my strong disagreement with the Senator’s vote on the Sanders amendment. While I realize it’s more or less a show vote, not going on record to protect healthcare for the poor and the sick and the elderly is a terrible show.

    I called it quote – a garbage vote – unquote. (He wrote that down.) Since the Senator has decided to run for another term I’d think he’d be better served to get in the goddamn fight. This is not going to cut it with us.

    He did confirm he’s already fielded seven or eight calls on the specific issue this morning. I said next time I’m bringing a group.

    Nice chap this Landon. Ring him up and tell him what you think.

  7. anonone says:

    Have you heard Carper speak in public lately? I have. He appears confused, uncertain, and somewhat decrepit.

    I think if Carper had a strong Democratic Primary challenger, he or she could contrast with Carper in the same way a more youthful Carper contrasted with Bill Roth.

    But being too old has never been a disqualifying attribute in the Incumbent Protection Racket.

  8. RE Vanella says:

    I try to steer clear of blatant ageism, but you’re not necessarily wrong.

  9. mouse says:

    If he runs we need to assure there’s a primary challenge

  10. Alby says:

    People in frequent contact with him think it’s Parkinson’s, because he shakes really badly. If it is and he’s hidden the truth from voters, well, that’s just what Tom Carper does.

    Seriously, folks, confront him with the wife-beating. A Republican friend tells me the picture of her with two black eyes is still out there. It’s time to force his retirement, and if this is what it takes, so be it.

    If you’re not willing to use it, just admit you’re a bunch of pussies and we’ll move on.

  11. NCC Dem says:

    I know everyone on here would much rather have ken simpler as a senator, right?

  12. Ben says:

    Right, because those are the only 2 people in De eligible to run for office.

  13. Ben says:

    Is that seriously the Party-line reason to vote for wife-beater and health insurance supplicant/ bootlicker, Tom Carper?

  14. Alby says:

    @NCC Dem: Even a relative newcomer to politics like Ben saw right through that flimsy excuse.

    Does Ken Simpler beat his wife? No? Then he treats women better than Carper does.

  15. RE Vanella says:

    In case anyone wonders what we mean when we say someone is fucking useless in the fight, remember NCC Dem, if that is her or his real name.

  16. Dave says:

    I don’t have any particular love or hate with Carper. He is kind of a steady eddie. A known quantity. My general impression of Ken Simpler is pretty much the same.

    When it comes time to elect someone if I have a choice between Simpler and Carper, I’m voting Carper. I also don’t think Simpler will run if he is running against Carper. Regardless, the Democrats will have to come up with someone who will be competitive against someone like Simpler (who will be the DEGOPs best bet). As progressives, I’m certain that your part of criteria will be their progressive bonafides. But having a progressive CV has to be balanced with electability. Most people will probably be happy to press the D button like they did the last time, unless you give them a reason not to.

  17. RE Vanella says:

    Dave is also useless. Electability is made up and the point is to ensure that the choice is NOT Carper v Simpler.

    I know we’re prohibited from discussing 2016. If this is so stop making the same mistakes.

  18. Alby says:

    We’re prohibited from discussing 2016? First I’ve heard of it. That crew is on a different ship now. Neo-liberals aren’t going to give up until they understand that centrism might be OK as a final compromise point, but it’s the stupidest imaginable principle to embrace as you enter a negotiation fight.

    Centrism should be a result, not a strategy.

  19. Dave says:

    “Dave is also useless” to whom, progressives? I’m not one so, yeah ok.
    Everything is “made up,” including democracy. So what? If you put forth a candidate that doesn’t not appeal to the majority of actual voters, then mathematically they cannot win. All I offer is my perspective on what may appeal to me, and perhaps others like me. If that is of no use to you, it’s not really relevant to me. If you don’t need my vote, that’s fine also.

    However, I am suggesting that people (except for the alt right whacks) will gravitate towards the safer choice, unless they are desperate and start looking for a savior.

  20. Ben says:

    I mean… Thats why 45 won after all. All those people gravitating toward the safer choice.

  21. Alby says:

    @Dave: What Ben said. I, too, thought Hillary would win because people wouldn’t roll the dice on a nutcase. I suspect you’re not a gambler. I can never figure out why people are wasting their time and money in a casino, either, but obviously some people don’t like playing it safe.

  22. RE Vanella says:

    I am suggesting that that idea is fucking useless because we tried that already and here we are. It’s not a novel idea. It’s exactly what ran us into a ditch.

    We had this argument 13 months ago and if you want to have it again we can, but history is on my side since the centrist argument lost. You and your ideas are pointless and impotent. We were in a pitched battle and you want align with the Chris Coons’ of the world. Not interested….

    Go find some fucking courage and stand for something.

  23. RE Vanella says:

    Manchin/Lieberman 2020! Am I right? Guys… guys?

  24. Alby says:

    @REV: Centrists are generally worried that an extremist, of either variety, will be elected, and the backlash to it will be worse.

    Considering we’re in a vicious backlash against a center-leftist, imagine what the backlash to an actual liberal would be like.

  25. RE Vanella says:

    So equivocating got us Trump and not equivocating will get us who, David Duke? Alex Jones?

    That’s even more nihilistic than me. And anyway, if I’m going down I’m going down standing up for something and swinging like mad rather than lying down.

  26. Ben says:

    Fence sitters end up getting impaled on the pickets.

  27. Anono says:

    @Alby “folks, confront him with the wife-beating.”
    That has already been addressed and thank you and the rest of the Demos who voted for him. Sounds like he might not run, due to his health, so let the guy leave graciously and retire. But, you would rather, throw him under the bus and get in the bus and drive it.
    Let it go, already!

  28. Alby says:

    @Anono: We already know you conservatives are OK with treating women badly. This is directed at the Democrats who pretend otherwise.

    Sorry, but he’s a liar who has skated on this for decades. If long-past-due bills are being collected, why not his? It’s not like he’s some swell guy who deserves the benefit of the doubt. He’s a weirdo with a temper.

    Also, he has said he is running again, so whatever it takes to keep him out of office is fair game.

  29. Dave says:

    “We had this argument 13 months ago and if you want to have it again we can”

    I’m not interested in litigating the last election. There are a host of reasons why Clinton did not win. And to preempt you, yeah she was a flawed candidate. However, it was also because some people stayed home, or voted for neither one.

    My sympathies lie with those who could not vote, whose vote did not matter, or who voted for Clinton. The rest can go pound sand with the fervent hope that they reap what they sowed.

    “Go find some fucking courage and stand for something.”

    Like you? How’s that working out for you so far? Idealism is wonderful when everyone shares those ideals. Give me the unifying proposition and I’m on board, but that’s because I actually share some of those ideals.

    Your problem, that you have yet to solve, is how to get everyone else on board. Until then you are but an voice in the wilderness, perpetually outraged, full of sound and fury signifying nothing. I’ve seen people like you all my life who set these fantastic goals with the notion that if we all just wish hard enough and believe, it will happen. Goals without strategy and a plan are nothing more than wet dreams. I stopped having those a number of years ago and I’m in the pragmatic, show me phase of life.

  30. RE Vanella says:

    You’re afraid. It’s OK. I’ll do you share too.

    It’s very funny you think there’s no strategy.

    Unifying proposition, Medicare for all. $15 an hour minimum wage. Are you in or out?

  31. RE Vanella says:

    Oh, and for the record I have no “fantastic goals”. I assume to lose most if not every battle. But I’m not going down arguing for pragmatism because that the kind of weak equivocation that got us here.

    The reason I expect to lose isn’t because of my opponents, it’s because people like you are too stubborn to get out of this practical mindset which goes nowhere and accomplishes nothing.

  32. Ben says:

    Now, Now, rev. That might upset the suburban Philadelphians who decide the whole election.
    The fun part is, Dave will be at the victory party pretending he was in the trenches the whole time… and ya know what, I’ll happily buy him a drink… well drinks tho, top shelf is for people who can stand for something.

  33. Alby says:

    Dave has been commenting for years, but you guys haven’t been listening to him, apparently. No, he won’t be at the victory party. Not everybody who reads this blog is an activist.

    They also serve who show up only on election day.

  34. RE Vanella says:

    Look, I’m not proposing everyone be an activist. (I’ll have more to say about this next week.) But Jesus fucking Christ if I hear about the wonders and maturity and great successes of the pragmatic approach one more time I might lose my lunch.

  35. Alby says:

    Solution: Skip lunch. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  36. Ben says:

    As an aside… No, John Conyers… you dont get to step aside for being a creep then have your son replace you. Jesus fuck, these dynastic neo-liberals are so clueless.

  37. Alby says:

    I don’t think he’s a neo-liberal. He’s a legacy, like Robert Byrd or Strom Thurmond. He’s there because of his work in the civil rights era. That said, the “family business” approach to politics has been there since the dawn of the Republic.

  38. Liberal Elite says:


  39. Luis says:

    Carper has been voting against the best interests of working class Delawareans for years. Let us not forget he voted against the legal importation of prescription drugs from Canada. Where the very same little blue pill, that costs me 42. at Costco, totals out at 11.25 when I order it through a Canadian pharmacy. Carper must be primaried and defeated in his next election cycle. Here’s a thought Tom C. Instead of voting NOT to protect medicare and medicade how about introducing or co-sponsoring a bill to let medicare and medicade negotiate prescription drug prices like the whole of Canada does. It would probably save the Treasury a couple of billion or so instead of lining the pockets of your largest contributors. OH, that’s right. Now I get it.

  40. Dave says:

    Alby is correct. I don’t do victory parties. I do what I have to do and get back to work. And I buy my own top shelf.

    RE: “Unifying proposition, Medicare for all. $15 an hour minimum wage. Are you in or out?”

    Sure Medicare for all. Any of you on Medicare at the moment? Do know what’s covered and what’s not? Do you know about the Medicare doughnut hole? What’s the strategy for covering the Medicare gap? What’s your plan for doctors who aren’t accepting Medicare patients? Is there a plan for reigning in prescription drug and hospital costs? Ignore the tax increase on everyone to pay for it, containment requires lowering the payments to doctors, hospitals, and drug company. This is something we could and should today. Why would the advent of Medicare for all suddenly cause this to happen? Lower drug prices today. Lower hospital costs today. Lower physician reimbursement rates (while making sure they don’t jump ship) today.

    The 2016 living wage in the United States is $15.84 per hour before taxes, for a family of four not $15. The National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) research shows, rent alone for a two bedroom apartment requires a wage rate that is more than $21.00 an hour. How does $15 per hour ameliorate the housing problem? They can afford to buy food now, but they are still living their car.

    I deal in solutions, which are grounded in executability. I care nothing for partisan politics or sloganeering. Show me a plan that makes sense and I’m on board. Show me slogans, and I just yawn because they are mostly a field of dreams.

    For those who were not around or were familiar with it, go research JFK’s man on the moon speech. But don’t just read the speech. Do some research and delve into the national effort to land a man on the Moon. There are many of us still around who were part of that effort and it was a unified national effort. Model that effort and you have yourself a campaign.

    Slogans are nice cause they fit on signs at rallies. But they don’t energize the nation and until you do that, you are tilting at windmills. And I, for one, do not play Don Quixote.

  41. RE Vanella says:

    Solutions oriented! Just like Hillary.

  42. Martha W says:

    I have been a Democrat my whole life in DE and have voted for Carper many times. I will be most certainly voting for Chuck Boyce in 2018.

  43. RE Vanella says:

    Let’s not do anything rash… ๐Ÿ™‚

  44. nathan arizona says:

    It wasn’t the solutions part that made Hillary such a bad candidate.

  45. RE Vanella says:

    Correct. It was that her pragmatic solutions-based approach simply gave anyway less of the store (see also, Coons, Chris).

    This approach is unpopular and ineffective and just failed 13 months ago. So it’s hilarious to me that we’re going find a middle ground with pragmatism when nobody wants that at all.

    It’s a great plan. Sounds like a real winner.

    The facts are that a group of heinous rat fuckers run Congress, the Executive branch, the judiciary and most governors and state legislatures. Who would you like to partner with? Join the fight in whatever way you are able or get out of the fucking way.

  46. nathan arizona says:

    So, extreme on both sides. Each president will be charged with getting rid of whatever the previous president of the other party has done. Not sure that’s a good way to run a country, but have to admit it would good to get rid of trump has done

  47. Alby says:

    No, it’s not a good way to run a country, but it’s the only alternative available when one side insists on extremism.

  48. nathan arizona says:

    What if both sides insist on it?

  49. Ben says:

    Both sides will always be accused of extremism. Its when dim centrists believe the right wing when they say that advocating for livable wages and clean air is “extremist”…. When that happens, that false “middle” i was talking about happens. Ever more to the right we march. I’d also point out that for every Bernie Sanders, there is an entire “Freedom Caucus”. It is not balanced and the progressive ideals you claim to support are vanishing in a cloud of bullshit compromise.

  50. mouse says:

    That’s it, I’m running. Vanilla ice cream and football players are my platform and I have a cowboy outfit from Halloween so I should easily win!

  51. Ben says:

    if you’re primarying Carper, you already have my vote.

  52. Dave says:

    “So, extreme on both sides.”

    Yep. And Trump is the consequence. None of the other candidates were pure enough (which is really laughable since the result was a person who is barely literate). So now, even if you get rid of Trump, you get a Pence, with his 6,000 year old earth and God guiding his every move. Won’t that be lovely? And even if Trump doesn’t run again you get incumbent Pence. People really screwed the pooch on this and I’m not convinced it can ever be fixed – at least not in my lifetime. I have nothing but disdain for those who facilitated this situation.

  53. mouse says:

    Vile pathetic people who voted for their resentments and against their own kids.

  54. RE Vanella says:

    Dave does a clever little trick here. Did you catch it? Trump defeated a worthless neoliberal centrist zombie, but now it’s recast as “extremist on both sides” brought us Trump. HAHAHAHAHAHA.

    Nice try, bud! You and your ideas are deceased never to be resurrected. I know is tough to take and actually standing up for something is scary. It’s alright. The people motivated to actually do something will take care of it.

    Godspeed with your revisionist history and pragmatic negotiations.

  55. Alby says:

    Check out the link I just posted on the open thread. Among millennials, 44% want to live under socialism, 42% under capitalism. Conservatism and centrism are both headed for history’s dustbin.

  56. RE Vanella says:

    I’m OK with a capitalist economy and a democratically elected socialist government. Checks and balances.

  57. Dave says:

    ” Among millennials, 44% want to live under socialism”

    Yes, but 67% of Millenlials are confused about the definition of socialism (along with71% who are confused about Communism and 59% who are confused about Facism but those aren’t the topic). However, 51% of them do know what capitalism is.

    Here is a link to the entire report:

  58. RE Vanella says:

    Fair enough.

    For the record, I’m neither a millennial nor confused.

  59. Alby says:

    “However, 51% of them do know what capitalism is.”

    Most people who think they know what capitalism is are just as mistaken as those who think they know what socialism is.

  60. nathan arizona says:

    By the time millennials are the main influence in elections, conservatism might look like the hip or sophisticated or wise thing. Who knows the future? Even now, I don’t imagine most millennials have more than a sloganeer’s understanding of what socialism is. A lot of baby boomer hipsters were pretty far left back in the day. Now, not so much. So maybe some of you are a little too confident that the future is your’s, politically speaking.

    That said, I’m fine with a movement toward socialism as long as it’s not so extreme that it’s self-defeating. And as I’ve said here before, I think identity politics and political correctness will turn off more moderate voters than a move to make the economy more fair. The PC stuff might be the area where Hillary looked extreme to some voters. (Mostly, I think, they just didn’t like her.)

    But if the choice is limited to the extreme right or extreme left, I’ll be going left.