1 I think that it would have passed without the amendment anyway.

2 Stupak told Pelosi his cluster of people would vote for the bill even if his vote failed. He just wanted it up for a vote.

It will be interesting to see if they stay to that, or if they buck Pelosi (if the bill passes the Senate, and it won't) and they remove it in conference committee.

3 So they lie, what's new. <shrugs>

4 The margin was five votes. Five. It seems to me that there's a fair chance some of those five would have defected without it.

5

And now I find myself rooting for the Senate as an institution.

It's a strange sensation.

6 Actually you only needed three more votes to block it.

Of course this could have been pre-arranged, with those most at-risk being permitted to vote against it, so, as you say, it's possible that it had already been determined it would pass by five votes.

Still-- three votes? I'd've liked to have take that chance.

7

4

The margin was only 5 votes because they allowed certain members to vote against it for their reelection chances. They could have got more votes than that if they needed. The blue dogs are a myth.

8 I am not so sure it would have passed. The number of "worried" Dems without a fgig leaf would have been a lot larger.

But as many said yesterday, we'll never know because stfupid Republicans gave them cover.

Now they'll take it out, also as many said.

9 Why vote for or against something, if it doesn't count.

10

"Sometimes I get the feeling that savvy is looked down upon in the GOP as being "inauthentic" and lacking "integrity" or something. As if anything clever -- well, okay: devious -- is somehow a sell-out."

Say what you mean.

Mean what you say.

I think that a huge GOP showing of "present" would have gotten spun (quite likely successfully) as the Republicans doing nothing.  Nothing at all.  I interpreted the Republican vote for Stupak Amd. as hedging their bet.

11

"But the speaker’s decision — like so many others she made during the drafting of this bill — showed Pelosi, a Roman Catholic and committed supporter of reproductive rights, to be more ruthlessly practical than her frequent caricature as an activist, upper-crust liberal from San Francisco would suggest.

It wasn’t just that she was disappointing some members over a last-minute change they disagreed with. She had to take on her closest and senior-most lieutenants on an issue that for many of them is like an article of faith, a defining tenet of what makes them a Democrat. And when she needed the votes, that’s what she did"

Different Politico article on the same topic...sounds very big-tentish, doesn't it?

Also, a catholic bishop called Boehner and asked him not to play politics with life...which I understand.  But, the bishops have already signaled their desire to have Obamacare pass, so the request lacked credibility and should have been disregarded. 

12 So now we're depending on Joe Lieberman and Senatorial Republican solidarity. Joe I can trust. Solidarity, not so much.

13 What if the house bill had ended up passing without the abortion amendment, which was highly possible?  Then, there would be NO grounds whatsover for including this type of anti-abortion language in the final bill. 

At least we get to make headlines when they rip this out, and as a majority pro-life country -- that'll be an effective attack. 

This was gonna get through the house at some point no matter what, and it was gonna SUCK no matter what -- Pelosi would buy off whoever she needed to get the votes.

I think the risk of it passing without that abortion amendment was too huge.

14 People say that it would have passed anyway but now we'll never know.

I get that abortion is the top issue for some people, even at the cost of Pelosi Care but this was a mistake.

It was a wedge issue for the Dems and the Republicans solved their problem for them.

When you are in a fight it is never, never, never in your interest to help your opponent.

The GOP is more interested in NRLC ratings than stopping socialized medicine.

Houston, we have a problem.

15 Sorry, not buying this.


Stupak never suggested the votes he had would never vote for the final bill if it did not defund abortions. He said they would not vote for it if his people were not giving the opportunity to present and vote on his ammendment. That was the deal. The pro-choice people were forced to accept a vote on the ammendment on the condition that the pro-lifers  would vote for the bill no matter the outcome of the vote on Stupak’s ammendment. Normally such deals to placate a minority are no big deal as the ammendment fails anyway. The problem for libs with this one is Stupak’s ammendment was sure to pass which is why there was such drama over it.

If the Republican’s had managed to cause the Stupak ammendment to fail the final vote would have been the same.

16

Who here would disagree the Republicans are retarded when it comes to political tactics?

Sorry to be cynical but if voters do not know by now that the blue dog Democrats are lieing when it comes to pretty much every policy issue and about how they will vote once they get elected  then they will never know. It took Owens a day to break 4 campaign promises for God sakes.

17 The margin was five votes. Five. It seems to me that there's a fair chance some of those five would have defected without it.

Posted by: ace at November 09, 2009 12:53 PM (jlvw3)

But that wasn't really the margin. They did what they had to do to get it passed and gave cover to everyone else.

18 >>>Say what you mean.

>>>Mean what you say.

Sounds like the sort of moral preening I'm talking about.

How about "I'm voting present because it's obvious to me this is a sham vote designed only to get this passed in the House and the amendment will be stripped out the moment it is"?

Is that not "saying what you mean and meaning what you say">

There is an old saying that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

I hope that it is understood that conservatism, and this endless moral preening about integrity, isn't a suicide pact either.

19

Which is why I find it so preposterous that Republicans couldn't manage the tactical savvy to vote "present" on the Stupak Amendment in the first place.

Tha falling piano wasn't large enough to do any serious cranial damage to the pubicans this weekend. Oh...Wiley Coyote had more tactical survvy than this bunch! 

20 At the very least, I would've opposed the Stupak amendment on any grounds.  I'll be damned if the most efficient medical care in this country would be found at a Planned Parenthood clinic, which is exactly what would happen if they are somehow divorced from the whole mess.

That being said, the flip side of the coin is enough to make one realize how noxious this whole bill is all around.

21 Erg, fucking go the fuck away, you fucking layabout lunatic.

22 What does this say for a bill that has been around for months, and finally gets passed around midnight on a Saturday night. I bet some Republicans were at home, and could not get back in time to D.C. to vote. 

23 Look at the statement the one Republican to vote yes on final passage made. He hid behind the Stupak amendment.

Democrats may have still voted for the bill but the idea is to make it harder, not easier for them to do so.

The Republican supporters of this tactic need to be honest and admit they are more concerned with abortion than socialized medicine.

BTW- If it becomes law, Stupak's amendment won't stop one single abortion.

Heck of a trade guys, heck of a trade.

24 It's worse than that, it's lose-lose, on abortion as well as socialized medicine.

It was always a sham. This was obvious. Why go along with a sham?

25 More proof that the blue dogs are liars and lap dogs for pelosi. You will have abortion on demand whether the amedment is in there or not. The courts will say so regardless.

26 I watched the CSPAN final vote and as soon as it got to 218, 3 dems voted no within 2 seconds to get cover.  They had the 218, Stupak amendment or not.

27 Why was there even a need for the amendmant considering Obama promised that abortions would not be covered?

28 erg, by the way, is lying in order to cause trouble.

29 I wonder if those same catholic bishops will be placing calls to Gran Nan demanding she not play politics with life by stripping out the language?  Think she'll listen, being a devout catholic and all?

30 3 dems voted no within 2 seconds to get cover

Why was the GOP handing out cover to Democrats?

Make them walk the plank.

31 Cao is trying to spin his vote as a vote of conscience. That may be,but he had to/has to know that should any form of Health Care pass the Senate, the odds of the Stupak Amendment passing through the sausage making process are slim to none. If he is doing it as a conscience vote, then fine. But he has to be smart enough to know what would happen to Stupak.

But, in a way, Cao represents the ultimate in Jesuit education that I encountered: liberal on social issues and human rights, with the only thing that even remotely conservative being abortion. I had to fight with people my whole edumucationing that to believe that voting for a “pro life” Democrat was really a fool’s errand, since the leadership of the Democrats will never let anything close to pro life stances see the light of day,

32 If the Republican’s had managed to cause the Stupak ammendment to fail the final vote would have been the same.

Need help with my Lotto numbers, please advise.

33 30: that is why the GOP could yitz up a two car funeral

34 That's why we vote for stuff, so we can strip it out later.

35 The blue dogs are a myth.

Posted by: Mr. Pink at November 09, 2009 12:54 PM (SqAkN)

Thank you.

36 It's time to give Washington DC an abortion.

"The Great Purge"© can't get here soon enough.

37
I'm really starting to loathe Monday topics.

38 Good thinkin supporting that USCCB!

39 "Also, a catholic bishop called Boehner and asked him not to play politics with life...which I understand." Just who is playing politics with life? My, my. How could we fall for the bait and switch so easily?

40 I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.  Heck of a job GOP!

41 It was always a sham. This was obvious. Why go along with a sham?

Posted by: ace at November 09, 2009 01:02 PM (jlvw3)

Because the Republicans are in on the sham. It's unfortunately the only logical explanation.

42 One thing is for sure. Whatever comes out of conference will have the Stupak amendment in it. It won't even get a blink in the Senate. So, in conference the pro-choicers will somehow have to make the argument that an ammendment that got more votes than the actual bill needs to be stripped from the bill.
It's not going to happen. DeLauro didn't have a meltdown for nothing. She's a smart woman even for a lib. She could see the eventual outcome as well as anybody else.
Schultz is friggin dreaming. This is just hot air to placate the rabid pro-choice crowd.

43 I bet some Republicans were at home, and could not get back in time to D.C. to vote.

Yays: 220
Nays: 215
Total: 435

Everyone that could vote voted.

BTW- If it becomes law, Stupak's amendment won't stop one single abortion.

That wasn't the objective.  The objective was to deny public subsidy to finance the selection of elective abortion procedures by participants in the "exchange".

Wasserman-Schultz doesn't know what she's talking about.  Reid doesn't have 60 Senators to keep taxpayer funded elective abortion in the Senate bill.  How the hell is he going to send two bills into conference that both oppose taxpayer funded elective abortion and then get it to the POTUS desk where he says "there will be no public funding of abortion".

The Stupak caucus is already bigger.  It was 40 members.  It's now 41.  If they try to put the public subsidy for elective abortion back in the House bill then it won't pass.

Look, pro choice GOPers voted for the Stupak amendment.  Even they don't want the government to subsidize election abortion.

44

Of course, of course.  Which is why I find it so preposterous that Republicans couldn't manage the tactical savvy to vote "present" on the Stupak Amendment in the first place.

The GOP should have just walked off the floor for the Stupak vote.  They should have said that they would not participate in any parliamentary shenanigans that were designed to nothing but help push the most un-Constitutional piece of legislation through the House in its history.  The GOP had to stand on the un-Constitutionality of this monster and not participate in anything that helped it through the process.

45 30 3 dems voted no within 2 seconds to get cover

Why was the GOP handing out cover to Democrats?

Make them walk the plank.

Really wasn't disagreeing with your premise, just noting a fact.

46 Who gets appointed to the Conference is the next fight; which we will lose - it is just a question of how badly.

47

Now that a solid majority of House members are on the record as demanding a prohibition on abortion funding in the Obamacare bill, it will be more difficult for them to vote for the conference report if that prohibition is stripped out.  It makes the second vote much more meaningful to the pro-life groups: their Congressmen will have to prove that their votes on the Stupak Amendment weren't just for show.

I don't think the outcome of the final House vote on the bill would have been any different if the Stupak Amendment had failed, with or without Republican support.  Pelosi's concession to allow the vote at all was sufficient cover for the pro-life Democrats, because regardless of the outcome they could claim that they gave their best shot to restricting abortion funding.

The Stupak Amendment, having passed, now serves as a poison pill in the House bill.

48 >>>One thing is for sure. Whatever comes out of conference will have the Stupak amendment in it.

Oh?

You're sure of Collins' and Snowe's votes, eh?

49

Dumb questions: Was the vote on the amendment separate from the vote on passing the whole health care bill? If so, how did inserting the amendment change the outcome? 

I think the Democrats have annoyed a significant part of their base by stating that abortion funding will be stripped out, even though they will take the amendment out later. On the other hand, the GOP has placated part of their base. I am perhaps a bit slow on the uptake here.

50 Of course the bill is DOA in the Senate.....until it miraculously raises from the dead in the middle of the night.

51 BTW- If it becomes law, Stupak's amendment won't stop one single abortion.

That wasn't the objective.  The objective was to deny public subsidy to finance the selection of elective abortion procedures by participants in the "exchange".
WTFCI

I know, that's why it was such a poor deal.

Democrats pass socialized medicine, vulnerable members get cover and women who want an abortion can still get it, they just have to pay for a supplemental policy.

Sorry, but that's not a good bargain for anti-Pelosi care people.

52 But, in a way, Cao represents the ultimate in Jesuit education that I encountered: liberal on social issues and human rights, with the only thing that even remotely conservative being abortion.

The Roman Catholic Church supports universal health care.  I'm Catholic and this is a pretty big problem for me because the Church does try to play patty cake with government treasuries and Catholics should be doing all they can to take their own means to support a universal health care system, but not necessarily supporting government theft and redistribution to create an equitable system.

53

The blue dogs have always been an abject fantasy, a talking point in order to get elected. They all ran in 2006 when Bush's numbers were in the toilet. Vote for us they said, we are not apart of the Republican establishment that jacked everything up but we are also not big spending liberals who blindly follow Pelosi. What they are is lying politicians who seek to hide from their voters their true intentions and as long as they can keep 51% of their district buying their crap then it is ok. You have a point that this Stupak crap provided a little cover so they could come home and lie to their voters some more, but they would have voted for this shit sandwhich anyway. Since they have had the Presidency and both chambers of Congress look at what they have done as evidence. Cap and Trade, the stimulus, and now this crap. They did all three in direct contradiction to their stated promises and positions. What makes you think this crap would have been any different? I do not blame them I am too used to it now, I blame their voters who it seems like to be called ignorant, racists, and love to be lied to.

54 >>>Now that a solid majority of House members are on the record as demanding a prohibition on abortion funding in the Obamacare bill, it will be more difficult for them to vote for the conference report if that prohibition is stripped out.

Are you paying attention? There were a huge number of votes for eVerify and the border fence and those provisions were stripped out of the Homeland Security budget bill in conference!!!!

What the hell!?!!

55 Eh, I don't know. The amendment complicates the Senate process somewhat, and that's a good thing. Voting it in now also makes it a bargaining chip that could derail the conference process.

So it could be a plus in the end.

56 Cao voted yes for two reasons:

1. Reelection
2. Obama bribery for federal loans to N.O.

More taxpayer money to corrupt assholes. N.O. is not the home of ACORN and SEIU for nothing.

57 Federally funded abortion does not equal eVerify, ace.

58 30 3 dems voted no within 2 seconds to get cover

Why was the GOP handing out cover to Democrats?

Make them walk the plank.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 09, 2009 01:05 PM (FCWQb)

The GOP wasn't handing out cover.  Pelosi was.  When she knew that the bill would pass, she had a quota of "no" votes she could apportion to Democrats to let them pretend to be persons of conscience.

The three Dems who voted "no" at the last second need some publicity so that their constituents can ask them why it was such a tough decision that they had to wait so long to cast their votes.

59 That bargaining chip would not also exist later?

Huh?

It also "complicates" the Senate process if they have no bill originating in the House to vote on.

60 The GOP just got conned into trading a dull looking quarter for a shiny scrap of aluminum foil off an old burger wrapper.

61 >>>Federally funded abortion does not equal eVerify, ace.

Right, 70% support eVerify and the border fence, whereas only 60% support keeping fed money out of abortions.

62 Of course, of course. Which is why I find it so preposterous that Republicans couldn't manage the tactical savvy to vote "present" on the Stupak Amendment in the first place.

Then they would have said that Republicans don't care about abortion anyway and if the GOP can't vote for such an amendment why should we worry about abortion?

Maybe if the pro-life movement had been unified in saying that it's a scam and we should vote present, then it might have worked.  But there are too many Catholic bishops who think killing old people to give poor people access to bad health care is compassionate.  So they wanted this passed.  Cynical Machiavellianism doesn't really work in this situation, the outcome is far from certain.  I also believe Pelosi had 3 votes to give. 

Stripping Stupak could provide "pro-life" Dems with the fig leaf to vote against it.

63 Now that a solid majority of House members are on the record as demanding a prohibition on abortion funding in the Obamacare bill, it will be more difficult for them to vote for the conference report if that prohibition is stripped out.

stuiec,

I know that's the theory but it's not the reality.

If something passes both the House and Senate the pressure to play team ball will be enormous.

This stuff gets harder to kill at each step of the way as the pressure 'to get it done' mounts.

This was an unlikely but good opportunity to at the very least create dissension and pressure for Dems Yet the GOP decided to pass.

64 Some religious people could never vote for abortion on any grounds. Personally, if the Republicans voted present, I would have to wonder if the Democrats would still have stripped it.

Regardless, the bill would have passed the House. SanFranNan wouldn't have called for a vote if she didn't have them in her back pocket. At this point, I feel that Blue Dog Democrats are akin to PUMAs--everyone talks about their importance, but no one can be sure they actually exist.

65 the American Catholic Church wants this for the illegals. that simple.

they've gone all-in for the Mexicans in the US. It's actually killing the schools around here but they don't care.

66 The blue dogs are a myth.

The blue dogs are this year's Pumas.

67 Also keep in mind -- with the elimination of 'pre-existing conditions' as a bar to coverage, nobody need sigh up for the abortion converage until they want an abortion. Then they sign up, get the abortion, and cancel. How much would that cost? Probably there'll be a clause that allows 'no-cost cancellation within 30 days', so no money will change hands -- except from the taxpayers to the abortion clinics.

68 >>>Then they would have said that Republicans don't care about abortion anyway and if the GOP can't vote for such an amendment why should we worry about abortion?

Of course that's what they would have said, but the fact is these guys need that cover on abortion for their own political survival -- regardless of what the GOP votes for.

Further, the GOP could have rejoined, accurately, that this is a sham, intended to get one pro-life vote on the record before the actual bill is proposed whch will cover abortion.

Which is, you know, TRUE.

69 You're sure of Collins' and Snowe's votes, eh?

Snowe's in the Wasserman-Schultz caucus.  Collins is probably there as well.

It is Democrats that move to the right if the funding for elective abortion is in the Senate bill.  Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, and Evan Bayh all have concerns about it.  Bob Casey is also likely in play.

Stupak-Pitts received 240 votes in the House.  Pelosicare goes nowhere without this in the bill.

70 The three Dems who voted "no" at the last second need some publicity so that their constituents can ask them why it was such a tough decision that they had to wait so long to cast their votes.

stuiec

When was the last time you saw the timing of a Congressman's vote become an issue?

Let's stay real please.

71 >>>Right, 70% support eVerify and the border fence, whereas only 60% support keeping fed money out of abortions.

It's not the percentage but the importance of the issue. Backing out on eVerify isn't core core philosophical issue like abortion. It will split the dems in the senate and the house in the next round.

72 Until January of 2011 the Democrats have the numbers in the House to pass whatever they want.  Period.  If the Democrats won't even listen to their own constituents, I can't imagine what the Republicans, acting as Republicans, can do to stop them.

The fight will be in the Senate, and next year's ballot box.

73 USA TODAY said Cao studied for the Roman Catholic priesthood before becoming a lawyer representing Vietnamses refugees. I think he learned  Social Justice first, and forgot about the abortion teachings, or pushed it way down the list of priority listings.

74 And look, time is on our side. The longer the process is the less likely that anything will pass.

75 What I don't understand is this: If you (Ace) are sure the bill would have failed in the House if Stupak hadn't passed, then how can you be sure that a conference-referred bill that comes back to the House without Stupak will pass?  It doesn't make sense, to me anyway.  Seems more logical to me that if you're certain a conference bill that strips Stupak will still pass the House, then you've got to admit that if Stupak hadn't passed in the first place the bill still would have passed the House.  OTOH, if you believe that adding Stupak is the only thing that allowed the bill to pass the House, then it's hard to understand how you can argue that a conference bill without Stupak will easily pass the House. 

76 The blue dogs are a myth.

The blue dogs are this year's Pumas.

Actually a better name for them is "worried" Dems in purple districts. They can see the handwriting on the wall and there is nothing that motivates a politician like the threat of defeat in a reelection bid.

All those previous liberal votes with Nanny Nan are a millstone around their necks.

77 Here's the thing...Pelosi put that up for a vote for a reason.  She obviously felt it was more dangerous to have the anti-abortion folks off the team than worry about losing the pro-abortion folks.

In what world does it make sense to help the Democrats paper over their differences? Shouldn't we be doing everything we can to exacerbate them?

78 54 >>>Now that a solid majority of House members are on the record as demanding a prohibition on abortion funding in the Obamacare bill, it will be more difficult for them to vote for the conference report if that prohibition is stripped out.

Are you paying attention? There were a huge number of votes for eVerify and the border fence and those provisions were stripped out of the Homeland Security budget bill in conference!!!!

What the hell!?!!

Posted by: ace at November 09, 2009 01:14 PM (jlvw3)

Wait a second.

When the Democrats stripped eVerify and the border fence out of the Homeland Security budget bill, they challenged the Republicans to vote against funding Homeland Security over those provisions.  It's pretty difficult to vote to shut down Homeland Security.

When the Democrats strip the Stupak Amendment out of the Obamacare conference report (if the Senate ever manages to pass a bill), the House members will again face the choice: Obamacare with publicly funded abortions or no Obamacare.  If you think there were a number of pro-life Democrats who would have voted against Pelosi's bill without the Stupak Amendment, they'll get a second chance.  If there were never enough pro-life Democrats to defeat the bill in the first place, the question is moot.

Craftiness sometimes involves setting up your enemies for defeat down the road.  Ask Br'er Rabbit about that.

79 And the "conservatives" here who keep harping that the Republicans needed to vote for that stupid amendment regardless of consequences are "Huckabee Conservatives".

80 If something passes both the House and Senate the pressure to play team ball will be enormous.

Final leg in the relay.  The House and Senate hand the baton to the President and it reads "this baton subsidizes elective abortion" but the President has said his plan will not support funding for abortion.

Does he sign it and take full ownership?

81

I'm soooo confused!

 

82 >>>>>Here's the thing...Pelosi put that up for a vote for a reason. She obviously felt it was more dangerous to have the anti-abortion folks off the team than worry about losing the pro-abortion folks.


And Pelosi is a genius strategerist now?

83 If, as a very staunch pro-lifer, I felt sure Gran Nan was playing politics with the amendment (not a stretch, certainly), then I should certainly be able to articulate that to my district and say, look, I am pro-life always will protect life, but this is politics and I won't play politics with life OR ALLOW THE OTHER SIDE TO.

Anyone with pro-life credibility should be able to make the case the Gran Nan is the one playing politics and she needs to be stopped as soon as possible.  As someone else posted, every step this thing takes is one step too many. 

84 Does he sign it and take full ownership?
WTFCI

In a heart beat.

Are you really thinking he might veto his signature achievement over abortion?

Do you really think Obama is anything but a rapid pro-abortion candidate? My God, he voted for infanticide in Il.

85 Hey, No Worries, We'll Be Stripping the Stupak Amendment Out of the Bill Shortly EnoughEven I saw that coming.  Literally.

86 The GOP just got conned into trading a dull looking quarter for a shiny scrap of aluminum foil off an old burger wrapper.

Yup, the Stupid Party is back and fully operational. Pelosi rolled the House GOP like a drunken hobo. Gives me tons of confidence to vote for Republicans in 2010.

87 TOH, if you believe that adding Stupak is the only thing that allowed the bill to pass the House, then it's hard to understand how you can argue that a conference bill without Stupak will easily pass the House.


House Dems can say they voted against funding abortions when they had the chance, but getting health care passed was too important to kill the bill after conference. It's called cover and repubs gave it to them. Plus, funding can be added later.

88 from politico. gist: stupid republicans For more than a decade, the Hyde amendment has prohibited the federal government from paying for abortions through any existing government program. The law needs to be reauthorized each year as part of the appropriations process, but the two sides had come to something of a détente. The health care fight, however, disrupted that balance, and a big bloc of anti-abortion Democrats were threatening to derail the entire bill unless party leaders agreed to stronger restrictions the church could accept. Since mid-September, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer had been working closely with Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.) to craft language that would thread what proved to be an impossible needle. Ellsworth, in consultation with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, was trying to amend legislation passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee to make sure insurance companies that receive federal funds under the programs created by the bill don’t use any of that money to pay for abortions. By Thursday, Ellsworth, who was working closely with Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) realized the church wouldn’t accept anything less than a version of Hyde, so he and his staff started working on a version the bishops could accept, aides said. Ellsworth reached out to Stupak on Thursday, and Friday evening they met with Pelosi, Hoyer and Rep. Henry Waxman, at which point the group agreed to include much stricter language than most thought they would. But they realized they would need Republican votes to approve the rule — and win the support of the church and, in turn, wavering Democrats — meaning they needed to go much further than anyone anticipated to bring an avowed Democratic opponent, National Right to Life, on board, aides involved said afterward.

89 >>>>And the "conservatives" here who keep harping that the Republicans needed to vote for that stupid amendment regardless of consequences are "Huckabee Conservatives".

Ugh, no they're not. And this is the kind of talk that gave us McCain last year so how about we focus on strategy seriously instead of being tribal?

90 77 Here's the thing...Pelosi put that up for a vote for a reason.  She obviously felt it was more dangerous to have the anti-abortion folks off the team than worry about losing the pro-abortion folks.

In what world does it make sense to help the Democrats paper over their differences? Shouldn't we be doing everything we can to exacerbate them?

Posted by: DrewM. at November 09, 2009 01:25 PM (FCWQb)

How does it not exacerbate the divisions among House Democrats to give their pro-life members a victory?  Given that, by the numbers, pro-life Democrats in the House are under 20 percent of the caucus, the Stupak Amendment pissed off the other 80 percent.  And now they're consoling themselves by talking about doing an end-run around the pro-life Dems in the conference committee, which is pissing off the pro-life 20 percent and inviting their constituents to demand that they defend their original vote for the Stupak Amendment by voting down Obamacare with publicly funded abortion.

91 runninrebel,

Let's see, she got her bill passed and the GOP lost.

So, at the moment, yeah.

We keep thinking we are going to win this at some juncture, just not this one. Well, we're running out of junctures and winning requires, er, winning.

Helping the opposition never helps you win.

92 Are you really thinking he might veto his signature achievement over abortion?

I don't know what he will do.  He has told Planned Parenthood that his HCR package will subsidize "family planning".  He has told the American people that his HCR will NOT fund abortion.

So, who has he lied to that can hurt him?  He's lied to one of them.

93 Politicians lied?!  No. freakin'. way.

94 Hey, No Worries, We'll Be Stripping the Stupak Amendment Out of the Bill Shortly Enough

Hell. Even I saw that coming. Literally.

95 The amendment complicates the Senate process somewhat,

No, it doesn't. The amendment is pre-arranged to get stripped, or an agreement is already made to fund abortion with later legislation. The bill is passed in the Senate, right now, or Pelosi wouldn't have forced a vote to send it over.

Democrats are not retarded. Most of their voters are, but the ones running shit know what they're doing.

If the GOP does, too, they're doing the same thing. Or they're retarded.

96 The Roman Catholic Church supports universal health care.

Well, give them credit for consistency: they always have been in favor of nationalized health-care, as far as I know. The RC church is not really useful to political partisans because they tend to offend both parties in equal measure. They like nationalized health-care (anathema to the GOP), but also hate abortion (anathema to the Donks). They hide and protect illegal immigrants, but tend to abominate gay marriage. Individual bishops are often at loggerheads with the church (and with each other), but overall, the RC church approaches everything through the lens of their faith. Right or wrong, you have to admire them for that.

97 Ugh, no they're not. And this is the kind of talk that gave us McCain last year so how about we focus on strategy seriously instead of being tribal?

Huckabee gave us McCain, not true conservatism talk.

98

Regarding the Senate - if you are to believe Joe Liebermann (o.k., iffy proposition, I know) then if a public option is included in the Senate bill, then he is going to fillibuster. Have to believe that at least 2 other Democrats are worried about an expensive public option (see, e.g., Lincoln - Ark and Bennett - Colo. ) Their poll numbers look horrible and large debt levels are not going to help their causes.

The real issues is whether the Senate Democrats who oppose a public option decide not to fillibuster and allow a vote, and then vote no.

99 Cao must be in the hip pocket of Palosi/Obama.  Again, in the USA TODAY paper, this quote.  "The president and I, we have had a very good relationship, and I thank him and his administration for their hard work in helping me to rebuild my district after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina."  ....  Once again blame Bush for doing nothing, and Obama gets all the credit.  Yea, right!!

100

"Sometimes I get the feeling that savvy is looked down upon in the GOP as being "inauthentic" and lacking "integrity" or something. As if anything clever -- well, okay: devious -- is somehow a sell-out."

Your take explains why Cantor came out on Friday telling Rush to dial down the chin music - again.  The Rs have no problem being devious to  Rs - Palin, Hoffman, Rubio, Toomey, Rush, Levin, Beck and the list goes on and on (dipshit Frume was beating up Palin on Saturday as the House was passing step 2 of socialism).  I think that moderate Rs are still stuck on stupid resulting from the MSM blitzkireg they got after trying to impeach Clinton and then reinforced by the Iraq war b/f the surge.   I still think they are more afraid of the press and what the DNC will say about them than their own base.  However, what do I know, I am just a R conservative,  shaking my head at the brilliance of the  House GOP leadership on the Stupak situtation, and the close vote on the bill thinking why did they not force Pelosi's hand.  We should not have to blow up emails and phones of the House R leadership for them to get the politics of the day and to give them advice and warning on how the Dems are not and can not be trusted.  When it gets to the point where we have to micromanage our elected officials its time to get smarter and more savy elected officials.  Oh yea, where was all the Sanctity of Life stuff when they were in the Majority - I don't remember any R victory outlawing late term abortion, let alone really going after Obama b/c of it?  Imagine if Cantor would have put up pictures on the House floor of a pic of an late term aborted child with Obama's name under it and saying the same thing that the Grayson said about the Rs - Ds they want you to die.

101 How does it not exacerbate the divisions among House Democrats to give their pro-life members a victory?
stuiec,

Because the bill passed.

I'm not saying defeating Supak would have lead enough pro-life Dems to cross lines, I'm simply saying we should have put them to the test.

It's like Texas Hold'em, make the other guy make a decision.

We removed the pressure from those 60 Dems to pick sides over abortion. They might have played balled with Nancy, they might not have.

If the Republicans had said, we aren't voting for Stupak Pelosi might not have let it come up for a vote. She might have reasoned it won't pass so why piss off the majority of my caucus?

She would have been put to the test.

If she then went ahead with it and the Republicans voted no or present, then they pro-life Dems would have been put to the test.

The GOP by supporting a meaningless amendment took the pressure off the Demcorats at two key junctures.

That's bad politics no matter how you slice it.

102 The best way for our side to make sure Pelosi/Obama/ReidCare never covers a single abortion, is to make sure it never passes.  Take the best steps to make that happen.  Again, that should be easy to defend to your district. 

103

Which is why I find it so preposterous that Republicans couldn't manage the tactical savvy to vote "present" on the Stupak Amendment in the first place.

By holding out for the Amendment, the Republicans voted for it (supposedly protecting their jobs) while "fooling" conservatives into thinking they had integrity.

Repubs, justice will be done.  Fear for your jobs.  Either at election time, or when Obama and his people will, eventually, strip you of them.  They will not forget that you ever stood against them.  We won't forget either.  You cannot ride the fence.  You must choose a side.  We know a true conservative when we see one.  And you guys are not it.

104 I don't know what he will do.
WTFCI

Allow me to assure you then that you are the only one who is not sure if Obama will sign a health care bill.

Come on man, you're smarter than this.

105 87 TOH, if you believe that adding Stupak is the only thing that allowed the bill to pass the House, then it's hard to understand how you can argue that a conference bill without Stupak will easily pass the House.

House Dems can say they voted against funding abortions when they had the chance, but getting health care passed was too important to kill the bill after conference. It's called cover and repubs gave it to them. Plus, funding can be added later.

Posted by: Dr. Spank at November 09, 2009 01:28 PM (muUqs)

1) If the Stupak Amendment failed Saturday night, the argument that "I voted against abortion funding when I had the chance, but the need for public health care is too important to kill the bill" would still have been just as operative, and the bill would have passed without the Stupak Amendment.

2) "Funding can be added later" is what is going to happen in the conference committee.  I don't think the Democrats are so secure in the idea that "funding can be added later" that they would be willing to do the sneaky thing and keep the Stupak Amendment in the conference report, which would make final passage of the total package much more likely.  Instead, they're probably going to strip out the Stupak Amendment to curry favor with pro-choice groups, and make the final passage of the total package less secure.

106 The GOP by supporting a meaningless amendment took the pressure off the Demcorats at two key junctures.

That's bad politics no matter how you slice it.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 09, 2009 01:35 PM (FCWQb)

The GOP supported a process designed to tear the very foundations of the Constitution apart, just by paticipating in the Stupak vote, at all.  That's bad governance, no matter how you slice it.  They should have walked off the floor and screamed about the destruction of the Constitution and limited government, as that is the key point of this legislation, whether people think that sells or not.

107 I'm still trying to figure out what's "pro-life" about denying medical care to old/disabled people by fiat  (that would be the "items and services doctors are allowed to use, as decided by the panels that Obama says don't really exist" in Sec. 1402 (p. 756)).  Anyone?

108

A top House Democrat said Monday she's "confident" that a conference committee will strip language in the House health bill on taxpayer funding for abortion.

Could be. The House will have to vote on the final bill, whatever it is. So the Dems don't have "cover" on this abortion question.

109 Whole lot of mind reading going on.

110 In other news, Rachel Maddow reports that sperm making contact with the egg plays absolutely no role in becoming pregnant is something she knows nothing about.

FTFY

111 People stayed home the last 2 election cycles as a way of "making the Republicans pay". Tell me this: if people had actually voted both those times, would we be in this mess? Would anyone even be contemplating that universal health care would pass?

112 This was a done deal, or it wouldn't have been scheduled for a vote.  I am just amazed that all the republicans voted together on it-   There are enough  Dem. appointment jobs-for life in this turkey that I'm sure nazi pelosi promised out for this, damn the 2010 elections.

113 It makes me think the amendment was an ok idea, you have Dems threatening to jump ship over it.  It is something else to try to chuck under the tires.

Although on the other hand it is like voting for something that says "when beating your wife, it is not ok to kill her."  The whole thing sucks.

114

Huckabee and Romney and Thompson and Tancerdo and Hunter all splitting the conservative vote gave us McCain, not true conservatism talk.

FIFY

115 1) If the Stupak Amendment failed Saturday night, the argument that "I voted against abortion funding when I had the chance, but the need for public health care is too important to kill the bill" would still have been just as operative, and the bill would have passed without the Stupak Amendment.

How do you know that?  You don't.

2) "Funding can be added later" is what is going to happen in the conference committee.  I don't think the Democrats are so secure in the idea that "funding can be added later" that they would be willing to do the sneaky thing and keep the Stupak Amendment in the conference report, which would make final passage of the total package much more likely.  Instead, they're probably going to strip out the Stupak Amendment to curry favor with pro-choice groups, and make the final passage of the total package less secure.

How do you know that?  You don't.

116 >>>Helping the opposition never helps you win.

Meh. Maybe. Maybe not. The best way to defeat this bill is to draw out the process and get word out about what is in it. We need time to pressure Obama on his "plan" and get more of the public against the the final bill.

So knowing that this ammendment will be stripped at some point anyway, it makes since to vote for it now so that you can make a stink when it is stripped out of the final bill (When more people are paying attention).

I mean, I can see either strategy working, but I sort of favor this one. I don't thing it's an error anyway.

117

Making this an easier call is that it was obviously a sham vote that was never worth the paper it was printed on. It was a contrivance simply to give endangered moderate "Democrats" a pro-life vote before they voted for the pro-abortion bill.

You're overreacting. If the Dems want to vote for the bill reagrdless of abortion, they'll do that. If they won't do it with abortion in it, the bill will still fail in the House. Nothing has changed because of this amendment.

The key was and remains the Senate.

118

Bejeezers...and I thought the leftards dicked me around!

 

119 Allow me to assure you then that you are the only one who is not sure if Obama will sign a health care bill.

He'll sign a health care bill.  I don't know if he'll sign one that includes public subsidy for elective abortion.

He says he won't.  Do you really think he just changes the tune he's played for the last 12 months?

He said he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act.  The Democrats don't even dare to bring this bill up for debate.

120

Going to have my Daryl Hall moment (oh, I, tend to see, both sides when they disagree and neither one seems right) here:

First, the way the House is set up, in all likihood, with or without Stupak, the bill probably would have passed. The Speaker completely controls the schedule. If she doesn't think something will pass, it is not brought up. If she doesn't want something to pass, it is not brought up.

Second, however, I think those that rasie the point that not approving Stupak would have caused more pressure on the Democrats are correct as well. And, in addition, you have a vote of record where so called "Pro-Life" Democrats voted to pass a bill that would not have prohibited pubic funding of abortions.

Third, however, if you are truly one of those that believes life is a vote of conscious, then politics be damned, you do what your conscious dictates.

Truth is, we will never know. But, if you truly, truly believe Life is a vote of conscious, and your conscious would not let you be if you failed to vote for Stupak, I can over look the vote for that reason.

Of course, with this Congress, that probably is an excuse for maybe 3 or 4 Congressmen and women.

121

DrewM,

If the Republicans had said, we aren't voting for Stupak Pelosi might not have let it come up for a vote. She might have reasoned it won't pass so why piss off the majority of my caucus?

She would have been put to the test.

Stupak put her to the test.  She passed: she agreed to give him a vote on his amendment.  There's your cover right there, regardless of how the GOP members voted.

Had the GOP members voted nay or present, the pro-life Dems would still have their votes on the record: "I voted to prohibit Federal funding of abortion."

Had the Stupak Amendment thus failed, the pro-life Dems would have then been able to say, "Having fought the good fight and lost, I had to vote for the bill because health care is so important that we can't kill it over that one issue."  As you say, they would have been forced to choose but would have had a moral victory to make the choice easier and to soothe their disappointment.

The Stupak Amendment passed.  The pro-life Dems can convince themselves that they won a tangible victory, that they have something they didn't have before.

And now their Democrat colleagues are going to take that away from them.  Not getting what you want is disappointing, but getting what you want and then getting it stripped away from you makes you angry.

By the way, to the extent that pro-choice Dems saw the Stupak Amendment stripping them of something they thought they had in the Pelosicare bill, they got angry Saturday night -- but they voted for the bill anyhow, yes?  And they're plotting their revenge on the pro-life Dems in conference committee -- sounds like an exacerbated division to me.

That is the kind of forced choice that can get your opponent to make a crucial mistake.

122 >>>He says he won't. Do you really think he just changes the tune he's played for the last 12 months?

OMFG.

He's against gay marriage too. You've heard that, rihgt?

123 I hope that it is understood that conservatism, and this endless moral preening about integrity, isn't a suicide pact either.

Posted by: ace at November 09, 2009 12:59 PM (jlvw3)

This is a goddammed knife fight. The libtard Democrats have known that for most of my life. The fucking Republicans don't even know they're in a fight. Dumbshits.

"There ain't no rules in a knifefight" - Harvey Logan

Heed him or die.

124

This strikes me as missing the forest for the trees.

Obsessing about the Stupac amendment seems to fit that description to a tee.

Stop national health care, and no one has to worry, ever, about whether it funds abortions or not.

I'm glad we have people like Karl to point out the obvious for us.

125 Huckabee and Romney and Thompson and Tancerdo and Hunter all splitting the conservative vote Open primaries gave us McCain, not true conservatism talk.

Fixed it again.

126 The way I see it:  It was either an exercise in complex political strategy or an exercise in stupidity.  But the real fight was always going to be in the Senate anyway.  It's not worth a lot of effort arguing over.  I've already stopped contributing to the NRCC anyway after the NY-23 fiasco so it won't change where my money goes.

127 Sometimes I get the feeling that savvy is looked down upon in the GOP as being "inauthentic" and lacking "integrity" or something. As if anything clever -- well, okay: devious -- is somehow a sell-out.

--------------------------------

Or it could be that social conservatives tend not to be very bright.

I mean, really - you think there would be more abortions if they were paid for by the gummint? "Hmm, I'd like to abort this baby, but I don't have five hundred bucks. Guess it'll be cheaper in the long run just to have it."

We're talking about a group of people who, when the country is about to go bankrupt from multi-trillion-dollar debt, still manage to find the time to get worked up about the existential threat of dudes getting married.

128

They don't call the GOP the Stupid Party for nothing.

129 WTFCI - I normally agree with you on alot of issues. But, Obama did say that the War in Afghanistan was a war of necessity. See how that is going. He will sign a 3 month old White Sox Box Score if it has "Health Care Reform" attached to it.

130 How do you know that?  You don't.

Posted by: Dr. Spank at November 09, 2009 01:42 PM (muUqs)

With all due respect, how do you know what you asserted?  You don't know it any more or less than I know what I asserted.

Does what I asserted comport with common sense and your experience of human nature?  Or am I describing attitudes and behaviors that no human being, much less a politician, could ever exhibit?

131 What I would like to know is why the entire GOP Caucus voted Yes on Stupak
There must be at least one R in the House who is pro-abortion..

132 You've convinced me. The best way to assure health care wouldn't pass the house was to make it easier to do so. What was I thinking.

133 The best way to defeat this bill is to draw out the process and get word out about what is in it. We need time to pressure Obama on his "plan" and get more of the public against the the final bill.
runninrebel

First of all, the best way to defeat the bill is to defeat the bill. Not including Stupak may or may not hve killed it but it was worth a shot.

As for your worse is better argument, it defeats itself.

If the idea is to let people know that the bill is awful, why not defeat Stupak and have another awful item in it to beat Democrats over the head with?

It's easier to rant against Pelosi's bill with another powerful talking point...it funds abortions.

There's is no level on which this was good tactics.

134 Perhaps this Universal Health Care business is best left to the SCOTUS. As long the court does not change 5-4 as it is now.  This law may still be found unconstitutional. However, I am not a betting man on this.   

135 Signing an HCR bill that includes funding for elective abortion is political doom.

They'll get their bill.  Then they'll lose the House in 2010.  And the White House and Senate in 2012.

The Purple Democrats that represent districts easily won by McCain won't have the votes to keep their seats.

136 Yeah, talk about winning the battle and losing the war. Now we have to rely on Olympia "History Maker" Snowe and her ilk to have a spine in the Senate. God help us.

137

I don't think Stupak would have made a difference to the Democrats voting for the bill. I have no doubt in my mind that Pelosi gave cover to just enough wanting to opt out. My "blue dog" rep has an A rating with NARAL and 80+ with Planned Parenthood. Abortion would not have been an issue with him. But he voted for Cap & Destroy and faced some pissed off people in August. I'm sure he got a pass because the district is pretty red.

Stupak exists to hoodwink the constituents. And the Republicans played right into it. Even if it doesn't get stripped out in conference, it gets gutted when single payer comes along. I'm curious to know who among my friends (almost entirely pro-life and involved in the local pro-life ministries) thought that Stupak would make a difference. I certainly didn't.

The really disturbing thing about this isn't that the pubs are single issue; I don't think they are. It's how stupid they are politically. They thought it would be a wedge issue, and it clearly isn't because PP and NARAL understand it's cover. Just like most of the gay population understand that President Obama's official stand on gay marriage is cover.

138 I don't know if he'll sign one that includes public subsidy for elective abortion.

He says he won't.  Do you really think he just changes the tune he's played for the last 12 months?

WTFCI

Yes.

How long did he say, no more taxes for people making less than $250K? How long did that pledge last? A week?

He loses not one vote for breaking an abortion related pledge.

139 Did Stupak also relieve the "right of conscience issues?

140 What I would like to know is why the entire GOP Caucus voted Yes on Stupak
There must be at least one R in the House who is pro-abortion..

They may be pro choice.  They may even support insurance companies selling policies that cover elective abortion.  However, they still think the patient should pay for it.

Other than that.  Who knows?

Perhaps this Universal Health Care business is best left to the SCOTUS. As long the court does not change 5-4 as it is now.  This law may still be found unconstitutional. However, I am not a betting man on this.

The Roberts court will narrow the focus of any suit to the explicit merits that lack Constitutional support.  The specious portions like requiring coverage or get fined will be turned down.  Maybe the court overturns the whole bill, but I doubt it.  Roberts is a big supporter of narrowing the focus of questionable legislation to the objectionable portions.  He's not inclined to support challenges that try to throw out the entire piece of legislation.

141 stuiec at November 09, 2009 01:48 PM (7AOgy)

I get it but that's all excuse making.

For each of the scenarios you layout there's still a price Democrats would have had to pay.

Now they don't have to pay that price.

The GOP gave them a pass. It was a mistake and it was done simply to appease the NRLC types.

142

115 - I saw a video of a Stupak town hall meeting not long ago where he said if his amendment failed he could/would vote for the bill as long as he had an up and down vote on the amendment.  So, there's at least one Dem who would have said "I did all I could, blame it on the so-called 'pro life' Republicans."  I find it hard to believe that there wouldn't have been many more of the same.

143

I suspect this will have to get done this year.  How can Reid square taking the vote next year?  All that does is bring the spotlight back onto this issue, as well as the Cap and Trade issue during an election year.  Both are very unpopular and job killers, not to mention what if the GDP shrinks again this quarter given the fact that the areas that ticked it up were a direct result of one time gov money?  Does Reid realize he is going to loose his election, and is blaming it on the Libs and is going to do everything to nuke the Party by pushing this to next a vote year as a way of saying, thanks for taking me into consideration with all this shit?  I does not make sense for him to come out and say this might not happen until next year an election year when the economy is limping and job loss is at 10%?  Someone more savy throw some light on this for me please.

144 Honestly, that voters don't understand that Democrats will LIE to get into office needs to be addressed. We cannot truly take back purple, or hell even red districts that voted Dems in, until the notion that Democrats can credibly claim conservative positions on issue is blown out of the water. Unfortunately, the odds are probably against us.

145

This "stripping things out in conference" dodge works for the Senate, where you need 60 votes to move a bill and then fifty to pass it. It does not work in the House.

If abortion is a sticking point for forty-something House Dems then it will remain a sticking point if it stripped in conference, and they will still have to vote to fund abortion in the next vote on this same bill.

Many Dems will not support a bill that funds abortion, and many others will not support a bill which does NOT fund abortion. That problem (for the Dems) is still unresolved, its just been kicked down the road a bit.

That's the reality of the situation, the "endless moral preening" of the pro-abortion Republicans aside.

146 >>>>>If the idea is to let people know that the bill is awful, why not defeat Stupak and have another awful item in it to beat Democrats over the head with?

Because with it in there it will provoke another fight about it in the Senate and it puts several Dems on record as saying they will only vote for a bill that includes it. That provokes yet another fight among the Dems a second time in the house. In the long run it will make abortion a bigger deal.

Pelosi only cares about the House. She wanted to pass a bill and put it on the Senate. She didn't care if the vote hurts her incumbents reelection chances and she didn't care that it might complicate the process in the future.

147 131 What I would like to know is why the entire GOP Caucus voted Yes on Stupak There must be at least one R in the House who is pro-abortion.. Posted by: Rocks at November 09, 2009 01:52 PM (Q1lie) -- Because they think it may be a poison pill if it isn't pulled out in conference. Otherwise, it doesn't matter - they didn't have the votes to stop the main bill.

148 Stupak and the others knew this was going to happen.....as do we.  Dems never change their spots.  Kill the innocent, tax the living and dead and leave the USA open to attack by enemies, external and internal.   And we are fools for letting them into power.

149

Or it could be that social conservatives tend not to be very bright.

Yeah, like that "idiot" Russell Kirk.  Geez.

150 I don't know, Stupak made it pretty clear in that video of him with his constituents that his amendment was a sham and he would vote for the final bill no matter what. It's not much of a stretch to assume that most other blue dogs would do the same. Might as well get the pro-life provision in the bill and make Dems bicker among themselves about it for a while.

151 Am I wrong on this, or does the current session of Congress, mess with the bill (like adding, substracting, or changing things) behing locked doors. (no "R"'s allowed) I don't even know if this could be challeneged in a Federal Court of Law. It is either legal or it is not.  No shades of gray here!

152

For each of the scenarios you layout there's still a price Democrats would have had to pay.

Now they don't have to pay that price.

You are misinformed. Eventually the Dems will have to take a real vote, and when they do they will piss off some people (either pro or anti abortion) and pay a real price.

You are allowing your own anti-anti-abortion attitude to cloud your judgement.

153 How does it not exacerbate the divisions among House Democrats to give their pro-life members a victory?

Because of this:

Repubs, justice will be done.  Fear for your jobs


My preference would have been a present vote for all R's on Stupak.  But, the R's were in a no win situation here, they are held accountable by their voters, and the dems rarely are.

154 It's easy to say "It will be changed in a future congress even if it's not removed in conference."  But isn't that what Dems thought about the Hyde Amendment?  It's been around for 30+ years through Democrat and Republican congresses.  Maybe I'm naive, but I suspect that PP and NARAL are very worried about Stupak. 

155 Not including Stupak may or may not hve killed it but it was worth a shot.

As for your worse is better argument, it defeats itself.

If the idea is to let people know that the bill is awful, why not defeat Stupak and have another awful item in it to beat Democrats over the head with?

It's easier to rant against Pelosi's bill with another powerful talking point...it funds abortions.

There's is no level on which this was good tactics.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 09, 2009 01:52 PM (FCWQb)

Defeating Stupak would not have defeated the bill. If there was any way to defeat the bill Pelosi wouldn't have brought it to the floor. And it's a little hard to rant that the Bill is bad because it includes abortion funding when you specifically did nothing, like voting present, when given the opportunity to make sure it didn't.

If the republican's were going to game this they had only one option which was to vote No on Stupak and take the stance that they will vote no on anything related to the bill because it's that bad. Which makes them officially the party of No.

156 Because with it in there it will provoke another fight about it in the Senate and it puts several Dems on record as saying they will only vote for a bill that includes it.
Posted by: runninrebel at November 09, 2009 02:00 PM (i3PJU)

No, it doesn't.

The Senate isn't taking up the House bill, they are debating their own (the amalgamation of the HELP and Finance Committees).

Someone like Coburn can try to insert their own version of Stupak regardless of what the House did.

Anti-Pelosi Care forces gave up a talking point (the House bill funds abortions!) and passed on a chance to make Democrats make a tough call (only needed 2 or 3 depending on what it would have done to Cao) all in order to save their 100% NRLC record.

157

The GOP gave them a pass. It was a mistake and it was done simply to appease the NRLC types.

Now Drew, really, that takes things a bit too far.  It may be that they are just stupid.

158 93 Politicians lied?!  No. freakin'. way.

I keep saying that the deceit of modern Dems is on a whole different level.  This isn't "I didn't have sex with that dead girl or live boy." lying.  This is hard-core, cynical, Bill Owens-style "I was lying to you all along." lying.

It's brazen and it used to be that when politicians lied that journalists held their feet to the fire -- even Democrats.  Not so much anymore.

159 I don't think it really matters whether Stupak is stripped out, because it's practically toothless.  It specifically allows federal funding of abortions if the pregnancy resulted from, amongst other things, rape or incest.

I predict that if the language survives, and the bill passes, there will simply be an epidemic of "rape" like you've never seen.  Who at any of the slaughterhouses is going to be interested in verifying whether it's true?

160

We're talking about a group of people who, when the country is about to go bankrupt from multi-trillion-dollar debt, still manage to find the time to get worked up about the existential threat of dudes getting married.

People like you and Roger Simon seem to be far more consumed with gay marriage than is the typical social con. Maybe you can pry your gaze of that guys ass long enough to worry about the country going bankrupt.

161 The Dems backing Stupak were under no pressure once they got their vote on Stupak. Obviously their constituents want the Bill and the Stupak Ammnedment.
If Stupak went down they weren't going to deny them Health Care reform too.
The only Dem votes that were ever going to be against this Bill voted No.

162

Huckabee and Romney and Thompson and Tancerdo and Hunter all splitting the conservative vote Open primaries gave us McCain, not true conservatism talk.

Fixed it again.

Going way OT - but not true. Having 5 candidates split 75% of your vote into waterd down sizes with one candidate getting the remaining 25% gave you McCain.

You can close every primary you want. Florida was closed. Who won Florida - right, McCain. Why - not because the primary was open, but because 1) you had Christ and Martinez spearheading his operation in Florida and 2) had more conservativies fighting for conservative votes while McCain was left to gather the moderate/right of center vote.  California was a closed primary with porportonal representation. Who won almost every delegate out of California - McCain. New York was a closed primary - guess who won. Connecticut was a closed primary - guess who won. New Jersey was a closed primary - guess who won.

Look at the primaries Romney won: Nevada (Caucus), Wyoming (caucus), Maine (Caucus), Massachutes (open), Colorado (caucus), Minnesota (caucus), North Dakota (caucus) and Alaska (closed). Huckabee won zero closed primaries.

To subscribed to the belief that open primaries was a significant reason that McCain one requires a cognative disconnect with math. For this theory to be true, there would have to be a mass of independent or Democratic voters flocking to Republican primaries. Yet, even in the Open primaries, the democratic primary often had up significantly more voters than the Republican primary.  Open primaries is the strawman of the "why we got McCain" world. You get a McCain when 5 people split up 75%of the vote and 1 person gets the rest.

 

163

You are misinformed. Eventually the Dems will have to take a real vote, and when they do they will piss off some people (either pro or anti abortion) and pay a real price.

This idea that, 'well defeat the bill tomorrow' thing is getting old.

It may or may not have defeated the bill on Saturday. We'll never know now, will we?

For those saying it wouldn't have mattered because Pelosi would have pulled the bill before losing...HELLLO. That would have been a huge victory.

164 >>>No, it doesn't.

Yes it does. The amendment adds abortion to the number of important issues in any Senate bill. They will have to address it.

And it doesn't give up the talking point. It makes it the point louder by forcing the issue in the Senate.

And it will be an even bigger issue when it gets stripped out in conference.

165 That's the reality of the situation, the "endless moral preening" of the pro-abortion Republicans aside.

You are allowing your own anti-anti-abortion attitude to cloud your judgement.

Now you've really convinced me.

166 They will have to address it.
runninrebel

The Senate doesn't have to address abortion in its bill.

They will have to address it in conference but the Senate could pass a bill without ever mentioning abortion.

167 Someone like Coburn can try to insert their own version of Stupak regardless of what the House did.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 09, 2009 02:05 PM (FCWQb)

They most certainly will and guess what? It will pass the Senate easily.

So now both bills in conference will specifically not fund abortions. How exactly does anybody remove something in conference that is not under contention?

They don't.

168 For each of the scenarios you layout there's still a price Democrats would have had to pay.

Now they don't have to pay that price.

The GOP gave them a pass. It was a mistake and it was done simply to appease the NRLC types.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 09, 2009 01:58 PM (FCWQb)

I don't think the Democrats avoid paying the price.  I think the Stupak Amendment makes the price much more concrete, and it's due and payable when the bill comes out of conference.

It's a fact of human nature that a typical person feels more resentment about losing something he possesses, even temporarily, than about not gaining something he never had (even if a classically-trained economist demonstrates to him with logic and mathematics that in both cases, he's experienced the same economic loss).  The pro-life Dems now possess something -- and more importantly, their pro-life constituents think they possess something (like Ace saying we had eVerify and the border fence until they got stripped out in conference).

If and when a bill comes out of conference without restrictions on Federal funding of abortion, it will be much easier for pro-life Dems to vote against it than if the Stupak Amendment had never passed.  They will be looking at a bill that takes away what they thought was theirs and that forces them to reverse themselves on their previous vote for the Stupak Amendment -- essentially, to dismiss that earlier vote as a sham, as irrelevant or as a mistake.

Isn't there a dynamic in poker where you want your opponent to be forced to defend his earlier bets not because he has the cards but because he doesn't want to admit he's overplayed his hand?

169 So now both bills in conference will specifically not fund abortions. How exactly does anybody remove something in conference that is not under contention?

They do it all the time.

When they go to conference they simply start from scratch again.

170 >>>>They will have to address it in conference but the Senate could pass a bill without ever mentioning abortion.

Technically, sure. But they are inclined to address it because it is a bigger issue now that there was a house vote. And the pro-life contingent in the house will see that and push the issue.

If it passed without it (which I think it would have) then it wouldn't have been an issue until a bill went to conference.

171

They most certainly will and guess what? It will pass the Senate easily.

So now both bills in conference will specifically not fund abortions. How exactly does anybody remove something in conference that is not under contention?

They don't.

Really?

172 The Senate doesn't have to address abortion in its bill.

They will have to address it in conference but the Senate could pass a bill without ever mentioning abortion.

But if they don't address it, the House has to vote again. And if the House passes another  Stupak like amendment  and the Senate won't go for it, dead bill.

173 >>>They do it all the time. When they go to conference they simply start from scratch again.

And there you go. Then it's an issue that will further complicate the process.

174 A sliver of silver lining: Govt healthcare will be so bad that it will take 10 months to approve and get an abortion.

175 172 The Senate doesn't have to address abortion in its bill.

They will have to address it in conference but the Senate could pass a bill without ever mentioning abortion.

But if they don't address it, the House has to vote again. And if the House passes another  Stupak like amendment  and the Senate won't go for it, dead bill.


After conference, health care would need 218 Representatives and 50 Senators to pass. If it gets out of conference, I bet it passes.

176 Technically, sure. But they are inclined to address it because it is a bigger issue now that there was a house vote. And the pro-life contingent in the house will see that and push the issue.

runninrebel

Really? Tom Coburn (for example) was waiting to see what the House did before deciding if he was going to offer an amendment. That's what you think?

Republicans passed on a chance to put the D's to the test in the name of ideological purity. Plain and simple. Read the GOP leadership statement on the vote, it's what they said was their rationale. I'm not making it up, I'm disagreeing with what they said.

177 Reid..  That is a good talking point... He is in serious trouble right now for re-election. He must not care! He is a puppet of Obama's. He will do anything that Obama/ Axlerox tells him to do. The question one must ask, is the Senate a easier sell for Obama than the House? For Obama, this is his signature project. he will lie, cheat, scratch. say, or do anything to get it passed. Why this Heath Care so important to him.  Massive control over the masses?

178

After conference, health care would need 218 Representatives

That's exactly how many it needs now.

The conference committe trick only works for the Senate, not for the House.

179 After conference, health care would need 218 Representatives and 50 Senators to pass. If it gets out of conference, I bet it passes.

My understanding is a conference report is subject to a filibuster.

180

A sliver of silver lining: Govt healthcare will be so bad that it will take 10 months to approve and get an abortion.

WINNER - If you had #174 in the thread poll - go the pay window and collect your winnings.

181 And there you go. Then it's an issue that will further complicate the process.
runninrebel

Nice trick. Admit you are wrong and declare victory.

I'll have to try that sometime.

182 "Which is why I find it so preposterous that Republicans couldn't manage the tactical savvy to vote "present" on the Stupak Amendment in the first place."

This coming from a guy (sorry, Ace) who can't manage the tactical savvy to let the occasional DIABLO loose an election. It's the same "we must fight every battle and never give an inch even if we hopelessly undermine ourselves in the process" mentality.

183 Is anyone else having trouble getting this thread to reload?

I keep getting stuck at number 88 using Firefox.

184

Republicans passed on a chance to put the D's to the test in the name of ideological purity.

Please explain your reasoning there. I just don't see it.

And please drop this "idelogical purity" horseshit. You're as big an ideological purist as I've ever come across. The fact that your ideology is different from that of most Republicans does not make you non-ideological.

185 flenser,

Read the House GOP leadership statement. They said they didn't want to play poltics with life.

I want to play politics to defeat Pelosi Care.

One is ideological and one is tactical. Can you tell which is which?

186 My understanding is a conference report is subject to a filibuster.

I think you're right unless they attach it to a budget bill.

187 Reid and others have probably been bought off.

188

Is anyone else having trouble getting this thread to reload?

Several tmes over the last few days my compter freezes due to IE running out of memory. I strongly suspect that this site is the culprit.

189

#180 Mallamutt  If the Dem's win, you can bet that abortion on demand will be swift and final.  Quick in, and quick out.   Merely scrawl  your name here on the line, and the clinic will fill out the rest of the paperwork later. As soon, as they have proof that you are indeed pregeant. As a matter of fact, I believe that even Catholic Hospitals must do this, or be in violation of the law.

190 Hmm.  The Pro-Choice Democratic Party talking point is "a quarter of the House Democratic Caucus didn't understand what they were voting for".

DeGette said she remains hopeful that the amendment will be dropped as more Democrats who voted for it -- and their constituents -- realize it goes beyond the status quo of limiting federal funding for abortions. Some of those House Democrats are not against abortion rights, just against federal funding, and she surmised that they may have misunderstood the amendment.

191

Nice trick. Admit you are wrong and declare victory.

Ha, rookie. The real trick is to get the other guy to declare you were wrong, allow you to declare victory and get him to take out the trash. At this, I am a master. By the way, can you throw this out on your way out the door, Drew.

192 #183  DrewM  I only have trouble on the ONT threads. Never on any others.

193 mystery - I suspect you are right, I just thought it was a pretty witty piece of snark. Give credit where credit is due. Now excuse me, I have some trash to take out. Coming, dear.

194 They do it all the time.

When they go to conference they simply start from scratch again.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 09, 2009 02:14 PM (FCWQb)

No they don't. To be adressed in conference it needs to be a matter in contention. The only way that happens is if the Senate puts nothing in their bill and that isn't going to happen. The final senate bill will adhere to the Hyde ammendment. They will get an ammendment attached to any Senate bill on the floor there.  They can't just start from scratch in conference.

195

9 Why vote for or against something, if it doesn't count.

It is the simplest way to seem to be paying attention to the wishes of your constituents, while actually performing like a trained seal for your real constituency, the Democrat Party.

But Teh Intertubes have loooong memories, and funemployed morons that love to dig through them.  Used to be people would forget by the time next election rolled around.  Now, not so much.

196 >>>That's what you think?

No. But why wouldn't he see what happened in the House and try to use it to his advantage? 'Playing politics with life' is a matter of perception and spin. The Rs know that. It's perfectly acceptable to take up the issue, particularly now that it has bipartisan support in the House.

197 Rocks, you are saying that the Dems will let something as silly as existing law get in the way?

198 They can't just start from scratch in conference

The Dems are writing bills after passage, so don't be so sure of what's going to actually happen.

199

Read the House GOP leadership statement. They said they didn't want to play poltics with life.

Answer my question. Explain to me how anything the GOP does stops Pelosicare exiting the House.

How does voting "present" on the Stupac amendment change anything? You're not thinking rationally on this matter.

I want to play politics to defeat Pelosi Care.

You cannot defeat Pelosicare in the House, regardless of what politics you want to play. The Dems have about a 75 vote majority. They can pass the "Obama Is Emperor For Life Bill" if they want.  

200 They could flenser, but then again, they might not if enough "Blue Dog" Dems are too nervous.

201 Rocks, you are saying that the Dems will let something as silly as existing law get in the way?

Posted by: KG at November 09, 2009 02:34 PM (5VIde)

No, they'll do it with some other bill or simply ignore it in practice but the final bill that hits Obama's desk will say it funding abortions is prohibited.

202 flenser,

I never said it would.

I have said several times, we'll never know how defeating Stupak would have turned out.

It was worth the effort to find out and let the Democrats stew over it.

203

This idea that, 'well defeat the bill tomorrow' thing is getting old.

It may or may not have defeated the bill on Saturday. We'll never know now, will we?

 

You seem to be clinging to the fantasy that we could have defeated the bill Saturday, if not for those perfidious social cons.

Which says a lot more about your dislike of social cons than it does about the political reality in the House.

You remind me of Roger Simon blaming Hoffmans loss on his opposition to gay marriage.

204 How does voting "present" on the Stupac amendment change anything? You're not thinking rationally on this matter.

Voting present would have forced the Dems to pass Stupac. Most likely it would have failed unless massive numbers of pro-choicers voted for it. Unlikely. This would have forced Blue-Dogs to vote for a bill including abortion funding. Would have been an interesting vote. Stupac was all about giving Blue-Dogs cover, and it worked.

205

I think this should prove to everyone that the existence of the Blue Dog Democrat, Purple Democrat, or conservative Democrat is a myth. It's up there with the long list of cocks that Rachel Maddow sucked or Allahpundit's hopes of banging Megaton McCain.

Any conservative who votes for anything with a D next to its name is too dumb to be allowed to live.

And I'm still waiting for a bishop somewhere to have the balls to declare Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and other "pro life Catholics" declared excommunicate. Old-school bell, book, and candle. I'm a borderline fucking ATHEIST and you don't know how bad I want to see them excommunicated.

 

206 This would have forced Blue-Dogs to vote for a bill including abortion funding. Would have been an interesting vote. Stupac was all about giving Blue-Dogs cover, and it worked.

Posted by: Dr. Spank at November 09, 2009 02:45 PM (muUqs)

it wouldn't have forced a thing. They said they would vote for the bill even with abortion fudning if they got a vote on Stupak. They did. Stupak was about keeping the federal government from fudning abortions and yes it worked.

207 On posts where the comments are coming fast and furious the site gets hung up on a refresh with 10 in the queue. A solution for this is to try not to put up controversial posts with firm ideologies (like the republicans).

208 flenser,

You remind of someone who wants to deal in fantasy instead of reality.

You know for sure defeating Stupak wouldn't have impacted the final vote.

How?

My point is we should have found out for sure.

What's wrong with that?

209 it wouldn't have forced a thing. They said they would vote for the bill even with abortion fudning if they got a vote on Stupak.

They said it to whom. Their constituents?

210 >>>>This would have forced Blue-Dogs to vote for a bill including abortion funding. Would have been an interesting vote. Stupac was all about giving Blue-Dogs cover, and it worked.

Cover for what? It's not the final vote. Now many of them are on record as saying they will not vote for a bill that funds abortion. And there is the perception that many other Dems will not vote for a bill that funds abortion. That's more pressure on the final bill than there would be without the issue.

So now we can argue against the final Bill because of the price tag and debt that would occur, the mandate, the public option, etc... And abortion.

211

I have said several times, we'll never know how defeating Stupak would have turned out.

There are a lot of things we can never know. We can make pretty good guesses a lot of the time though. And it seems 99.9% certain that defeating Stupac would have zero impact on the passage of the bill.

It was worth the effort to find out and let the Democrats stew over it.

The Democrats still have to stew over it. If it is indeed a problem for them, it's not a problem which has gone away.

212 Stupak was about keeping the federal government from fudning abortions and yes it worked.

And to some (all of the GOP  in the House) is more imporant than having something to hang around the neck of Democrats.

That's fine if that's you prioritiy but don't be shocked when people who don't agree with that priority are pissed at you for putting that ideological principal above political advantage.

Again, I'm not making that  up, it's what the GOP leadership in the House said.

213 >>>My point is we should have found out for sure. What's wrong with that?

There's nothing "wrong" with that, Drew. But you're arguing that this is a terrible strategy or some kind of major fuck up. And that's just not the case.

214 And this proves once and for all that the "moderate" democrat is about as real as the "moderate" Muslim. F-A-N-T-A-S-Y.
 And the GOP completely sucks too. I am so glad that I changed my registration to "refuse to state" because, even though it is not going to change anything in the big picture I don't want to be associated with the RINO party anymore.
 But then, you know I am the queen of maxxximun outrage.
 I just wonder when everyone else is going to wake up......

215 People like you and Roger Simon seem to be far more consumed with gay marriage than is the typical social con. Maybe you can pry your gaze of that guys ass long enough to worry about the country going bankrupt.

-------------------

Flenser, when a retard like you insults me, it's a badge of honor.

216 runninrebel

The House GOP leadership by implication said there was political advantage in defeating Stupak. They simply weren't willing to take it.

Yeah, I'm pissed about that.

217 But you're arguing that this is a terrible strategy or some kind of major fuck up. And that's just not the case.
runninrebel

BTW- You are arguing it's a net plus. "And that's just not the case".

See my previous comments about the GOP leadership statement for my support.

218

So many care about the puppy mills but what about the evil done in abortion mills?

People just do not realize how many G*dless evil people are out there telling any lie, distorting truth and pretending that they are the "gods" to follow.

It has come to pass that the most corrupt are the most powerful and as usual the power they feel has made them  in their own minds "mini gods" because if they were not truely the annointed ones would they have been given these gifts of money and power to spread "their truth" to the people?  They are able to buy everything but the gifts that really matter which were never given to them in the first place--------  truth and G*d's grace.

What they have is an illusion.

Real power will never come from money and fame.

 

219 Ultimately, the biggest loser on the Stupak Amendment is the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.  The bishops who usually stay quiet due to tax code restrictions on non-profits, endorsed this product when the Stupak Amendment was added.

The bishops have an almost irrational concern over the treatment of (illegal) immigrants, which is why they were willing to endorse once the abortion funding was removed. 

Most Catholics will be hearing about the endorsement over the next  few weeks.  Does anybody really think that the bishops connection with the Catholic community is so tight that they can do a quick about-face when the abortion funding is put back in ?  I don't. 

The bishops will look stupid in the end, if this thing passes, as many Catholics will think that the Church has changed their position on abortion.

220

I would agree.

It can simply be pointed out now that Stupak and his ilk are complete and total liars who will do whatever the Pelosi tells them to do.

Wasserman Schultz is either a total idiot or beyond arrogant (I could buy both). Better to make it clear that Pelosi and the Obama Party will force taxpayers to fund abortion by any means necessary, including lying to their face.

221

You remind of someone who wants to deal in fantasy instead of reality.

Ah, the pot calls the kettle black again.

You know for sure defeating Stupak wouldn't have impacted the final vote.

We'll know for sure eventally, won't we? The point I keep making, and the point you stubbornly refuse to concede, is that this was not the "final vote".

The bill now goes to the Senate. It may die there. It will likely get modified there. The abortion amendent may well get stripped there. And then the House will vote on it again. And the anti-abortion Dems will still be on the hook.

 

My point is we should have found out for sure.

Assuming the bill makes it through the Senate, we will find out for sure. Either enough Dems will vote against an abortion-funding healthcare bill, or they wont.

222

Blue Dogs are about fiscal conservatism (in theory) not social conservatism. Since the bill is not fiscally conservative, Stupak should have neither been here nor there for Blue Dogs. Blue Dogs living up to the name "blue dog" should not have voted for the bill with or without abortion funding.

223 Drew...when is everyone going to wake up and figure out that the only thing different between the GOP and the Dems is a letter after their name?
 Both parties are beyond corrupt and about as anti American citizen as you can get....there are just a couple of degrees of douche-Y-ness separating them...that's all.
 Awhile ago I heard Karl Rove ,who frankly I always admired, state that "Americans want this or that in their leaders"
 Leaders? We don't have "leaders" in this country...we have representatives.
 And that was the last straw for me...all I can say for both parties and all politicians is they better be cranking up the vote maker from ACORN in 2010 because it's going to be a bloodbath.

224

Flenser, when a retard like you insults me, it's a badge of honor.

Then you're in luck, dickhead. I plan on awarding you many more badges of honor. Be sure to thank me.

225 We'll know for sure eventally, won't we? The point I keep making, and the point you stubbornly refuse to concede, is that this was not the "final vote".
flenser,

Again, 'we'll win tomorrow instead of trying today'. Brilliant!

You simply ignore how much more pressure there will be to vote yes as the process moves along and gets closer to the end.

You are willing to waste one chance to wini (however long) for the sake of ideology.

I'm not.

Oh and try for one moment not to be an ass. When have I ever said or hinted I thought this was the final vote? Be careful with any open flames, you might set your collection of strawmen ablaze. 

226 216

I don't trust the House GOP when it comes to strategy either. I don't even know that they really believed that. And there are no consequences on the right for being more pro-life than the leadership. That's more likely the reason why this amendment passed. If the leadership let this happen by accident or out of their own weekness it could still help kill the bill.

It's clear that there isn't good communication between the House and Senate Dems. The Senate really doesn't want abortion to become an issue. Well, this makes it easier for abortion to become an issue. It's another arrow to shoot at the final bill.

227 "The bishops have an almost irrational concern over the treatment of (illegal) immigrants, which is why they were willing to endorse once the abortion funding was removed. "
 Well of course the catholic bishops went along with this and are overly concerned about illegal aliens. As my husband, who is catholic,said they both have the same constituents. If it weren't for illegal aliens the churches would be empty.
 The Catholics were democrats before the democrats were even invented. They want their people ignorant and preferably illiterate because then they need the church......sound familiar?

228 You are misinformed. Eventually the Dems will have to take a real vote, and when they do they will piss off some people (either pro or anti abortion) and pay a real price.

----------------------------------------

So the House passage wasn't a "real" vote?

And I really don't see them paying a price with pro-abortion voters. It may be beyond the intellectual capacity of a blinded social-con like you to see, but when you're talking about socialized medicine - the Holy Grail of lefty politics - giving up a $500 procedure is, to put it coldly, a small price to pay.

Unless, of course, the pro-abortionists are as dumb as the anti-abortionists and really believe Stupak will stop a single abortion.

And stop with the "it would have passed despite our meaningless grandstanding." You don't know that, no matter what "99.9%" you pull out of your ass. We know what happened with Stupak - it passed. End of story.

And just to be perfectly clear on the previous matter - I don't give a flying f*** if gays marry or not. I don't lose a second thinking about it one way or the other, so stop projecting your own repressed guilty homo- obsessions on me.

229

When have I ever said or hinted I thought this was the final vote?

Try reading your own words, ideally before you hit Post.

 

You are willing to waste one chance to wini (however long) for the sake of ideology.

I'm not.

Bullshit, Drew. This is all about ideology for you.

If you want to say "we have to be willing to compromise on ideological purity for the sake of winning", it helps if the ideological purity you want to compromise with is your own.

It does not really count when what you mean is "all you wingnuts need to move in my direction".

 

 

230 runninrebel

It really seems that anti-abortion folks are glad their policy preference was passed and trying to find a political silver lining to justify it.

Again, not even the House GOP (which you simply dismiss) is trying to pretend they were maneuvering for political advantage. In fact they proudly announced they refused to take any action that would further their political aims at the cost of violating their anti-abortion ideology.

231

And I really don't see them paying a price with pro-abortion voters. It may be beyond the intellectual capacity of a blinded social-con like you to see, but when you're talking about socialized medicine - the Holy Grail of lefty politics - giving up a $500 procedure is, to put it coldly, a small price to pay.

That may well be true. In fact I suspect it is true, and that the key to stopping the bill is in the Senate.

But if we assume that it is true, how stupid do you have to be to assume that something as trivial as the Stupac amendment could deter the Dems from their Holy Grail?

232

In fact they proudly announced they refused to take any action that would further their political aims at the cost of violating their anti-abortion ideology.

Stop the endless lying already.

233 But if we assume that it is true, how stupid do you have to be to assume that something as trivial as the Stupac amendment could deter the Dems from their Holy Grail?

So you're Stupac was irrelevant to passage in the House. Then why not make dems pay some kind of price for passing it?

234 >>>It really seems that anti-abortion folks are glad their policy preference was passed and trying to find a political silver lining to justify it.

Well, not for me. Abortion isn't an issue of mine. I see this as a positive development. I want the process to grind on for weeks and end in failure. It doesn't matter to me what the House leadership meant to do. This adds abortion to the list of issues that we (and individual congressmen) can use to sink the final bill. And that's a good thing.

235 When have I ever said or hinted I thought this was the final vote?
Try reading your own words, ideally before you hit Post.
Posted by: flenser at November 09, 2009 03:16 PM (EU1uV)

In other words,  you couldn't find any actual examples of what you accused me of.  Below however are some examples of things I did write that show I get this is not the last or only House vote.

Just for future reference you might find it's easier to lie about people when there aren't example aplenty on the same thread.

If you want to say "we have to be willing to compromise on ideological purity for the sake of winning", it helps if the ideological purity you want to compromise with is your own.

BREAKING NEWS: Stoping Socialized Medicine Is More Important Than Passing It But Prohibiting It From Paying For Abortion.

I thought we all agreed with that. Am I wrong?

See here's the thing genius, if we defeat Pelosi Care, it doesn't matter what it says about abortion. You seem to want to hedge your bets, even if it means giving up a shot (long though it might be) to defeat the whole package.

Do you support Pelosi Care as long as it doesn't fund abortions? I doubt that's the case but it would explain a lot.

Here are my examples, as mentioned above.

#63
If something passes both the House and Senate the pressure to play team ball will be enormous.

This stuff gets harder to kill at each step of the way as the pressure 'to get it done' mounts.

#91We keep thinking we are going to win this at some juncture, just not this one. Well, we're running out of junctures and winning requires, er, winning.

#166They will have to address it in conference but the Senate could pass a bill without ever mentioning abortion.

236

So you're Stupac was irrelevant to passage in the House. Then why not make dems pay some kind of price for passing it?

They did pay some kind of price for passing it. The Dem caucus was split on whether aborton should be funded.

What sort of price do you think we could have made them pay? 

237

flenser,

Learn to read before you call someone a liar.

Here's what the GOP leadership said....

“To be clear, the Stupak-Pitts Amendment's passage is the right thing to do. We believe you just don’t play politics with life"

They admit they could have played politics but this was too important.

Fuck that. Play politics.

238

They did pay some kind of price for passing it. The Dem caucus was split on whether aborton should be funded.

They were so split it passed.

What sort of price do you think we could have made them pay? 

The price they would have had to pay for voting for a health care bill with abortion funding in it. If this issue means nothing for blue-dogs, then why did they need the political cover?

239 Ace,

McCormack and Ed Morrisey are right, and you're wrong. The Republicans did the right thing by passing the Amendment.

1: It was a payoff to social conservative voters. You would like to keep them on our side, yes?

2: It pisses off the Left.

3: If the Democrats strip it out in committee, then every single Democrat who claimed to support the bill because of that Amendment will now be on the spot. Something that would not have been an issue if the Republicans hadn't voted for the Amendment. The US Catholic Bishop's Conference will go back to opposing the bill, (and a change from support to opposition is always more influential than constant opposition). Which makes it more likely it will lose.

4: How many left-wing Democrats voted yes on Saturday because they assumed the provision would be stripped in conference? How many of those might peel off if it doesn't get stripped? It only takes 3.

240 >>>>Fuck that. Play politics.

Drew? Is abortion a bigger issue in relation to the healthcare bill now or two days ago? Come on. They are playing politics. It's all politics.

241

BREAKING NEWS: Stoping Socialized Medicine Is More Important Than Passing It But Prohibiting It From Paying For Abortion.

I thought we all agreed with that. Am I wrong?

You're not wrong. But your endless whining about the Stupcac amendent has no real relevance to that goal, and seems to be motivated more by your anti-social con views.

 

This stuff gets harder to kill at each step of the way as the pressure 'to get it done' mounts.

I guess that's why the amnesty bill was passed.

 

See here's the thing genius, if we defeat Pelosi Care, it doesn't matter what it says about abortion.

 

See, here's the thing. You cannot defeat Pelosicare in the House, regardless of what it says about abortion. It's her House. When and where did this fantasy that the bill could be stopped in the House arise? And when did all you "pragmatic realists" fall for it?

 

 

242 It was a payoff to social conservative voters. You would like to keep them on our side, yes?

Greg,

Are you saying that social-cons aren't really opposed to socialized medicine and we (whoever 'we' is) have to pay them off to keep them on our side?

If that's true, then the coalition is in bigger trouble than I thought.

243 This is Rep. George Miller(CathDem - CA) as quoted by Joe Scarborough.

There are “more pro-life votes in Congress than pro-choice” & abortion-rights advocates must acknowledge that reality.

Scarborough is highlighting the fact that Pelosi and Miller are "pushing back" against the prochoice caucus in the Democratic Party.

244

The price they would have had to pay for voting for a health care bill with abortion funding in it. If this issue means nothing for blue-dogs, then why did they need the political cover?

If you read this blog, they will still have to pay that price. They plan on stripping the Stupac amendment out in conference. In which case, there is no political cover.

245 Is abortion a bigger issue in relation to the healthcare bill now or two days ago?
runninrebel

It was big enough that Pelosi allowed exactly one amendment to her bill and it was on abortion.

The fact that the House GOP was responsible for passing that amendment is troubling.

246 After listening to flenser, I'm feeling more pro-choice by the second. If only I had a time machine.

247

I don't understand the GOP's strategy. Does anyone know of a single pro abortion Demcrat that voted against this Pelosi bill because it excludes abortions?

Essentially we are talking about no change with respect to the Federal government financing of abortions (Hyde amendment). However, if Stupak failed then we ARE talking about an essential change to the Federal government now financing abortions. This would be hung around the neck of every prolife Democrat that voted for the bill. It would also have required, FWIW, the Catholic bishops to oppose the Pelosi bill. That would have provided cover for pro-government health care Democrats in Catholic districts to vote against Pelosi's bill.

248 Posted by: flenser at November 09, 2009 03:34 PM (EU1uV)

Funny, I read your post but missed the part where you acknowledged lying about my understanding of the process.

I'm sure that was just an oversight and you're working on an appropriate statement.

249 >>>>It was big enough that Pelosi allowed exactly one amendment to her bill and it was on abortion. The fact that the House GOP was responsible for passing that amendment is troubling.

Are we back to Pelosi being a genius? She only cares about the House, not the bill's success.

But seriously, is it more of an issue now?

250 If you read this blog, they will still have to pay that price.

It's like Wimipy from Popeye, "I will gladly try and defeat health care next time it comes up for a vote."

Me? I want to try to defeat it every time it comes up.

But that just makes me a RINO and anti social-con or something.

251

“To be clear, the Stupak-Pitts Amendment's passage is the right thing to do. We believe you just don’t play politics with life"

They admit they could have played politics but this was too important.

You're still a liar, Drew. That statement does not say what you keep insisting it does.

You "pragmatic realists" can allow your prejudices to sway your view of reality as easily as can anyone else. And you do so on a regular basis.

Which is fine, as far as it goes. It only stops being fine when you combine it with obnoxous lectures about other peoples ideological purity.

252 runninrebel

It's funny but you simply dismiss anyone whose positions don't confirm your chosen truth.

It doesn't matter if she's a genius or not.

First of all, she didn't do it by herself. There's staff and other members who are smart (like Steny Hoyer). But no, you know better.

You also dismiss the House GOP leadership...all idiots.

It doesn't matter who is a genius or not, that was where the fight was on Saturday and the GOP walked away from it.

BTW- You know what makes you a genius? Winning. Pelosi won and the GOP didn't even take the field.

253 So to be clear flesner you don't think the statement that, "you just don’t play politics with life" constitutes a claim of ideology?

I have to apologize, I didn't realize English wasn't your first language. No wonder you sound like an ass so often.

254

Me? I want to try to defeat it every time it comes up.

Stop patting yourself on the back for five minutes and come up with some plausible ways of doing that. You have failed to do so thus far.

 

  

255

1: It was a payoff to social conservative voters. You would like to keep them on our side, yes?

Perhaps Boehner, et al. could have explained to us "stupid" so cons that Stupak was a hoax. They just had to abstain from voting on the amendment; that's it.

No one is going to convince me that someone who runs as a dem is truly pro-life (or fiscally conservative). The abortion lobby owns the dems. House Republicans should not have played along. I'm not interested in posturing on good intentions. If we end up with socialized medicine, this pro-lifers tax dollars are going to be funding abortions.

256 Don't make this personal, Drew. We just disagree on strategy. So, let's get back to that.

Is abortion a bigger issue to use in the heathcare debate than it was a couple days ago?

257

Funny, I read your post but missed the part where you acknowledged lying about my understanding of the process.

You seem to damn little understanding of the process, if you think the Stupac amendment was a big deal in it.

258

Perhaps Boehner, et al. could have explained to us "stupid" so cons that Stupak was a hoax. They just had to abstain from voting on the amendment; that's it.

And what wonderful things would supposedly have happened if they had abstained?

259 Is abortion a bigger issue to use in the heathcare debate than it was a couple days ago?

runninrebel

It's not any bigger now than it was then. It's one thing to say, we can shout about in the Senate but we could have done that even if Stupak failed.

The difference is when it comes to legislation votes matter and when it came time to vote, the R's by their own admission took passed on trying to take advantage of it.

We gave up a chance, no matter how slight, for nothing we wouldn't have had anyway.

We've also lost the "Pelosi's bill sucks because it finances abortion" talking point.

260

So to be clear flesner you don't think the statement that, "you just don’t play politics with life" constitutes a claim of ideology?

I don't think that the GOP leadership said "we could have stopped the healthcare bill but we chose not to do so for ideological reasons", which is the steaming pile of horseshit you've been dropping on us.

261 Kos twitter feed...

Daily Kos calling the Stupak/Pitts amendment the "coathanger amendment"

262 Drew,

If it's no bigger of an issue why is everyone talking about it today? Would we be having this conversation if the amendment failed? How would the "Pelosi bill funds abortion" talking point work if it was the R's that decided to let the bill fund abortion?

This obviously makes abortion a more important issue.

263 flenser,

I'm done with you.

You're a troll.

You lie about me and when confronted with that lie, you simply change the accusation (which is also a misstatement).

264 Every time I hear or read anything about Debbie Wasserman Schultz I think of the Wasserman test for syphilis.  Just can't help myself.

265 I'm still trying to figure out why the Catholic Church calls itself pro-life while needing pro-life organizations outside the Catholic Church to counter the results of  the majority Catholic voters who voted to empower the political candidate whose position on pro-life is more extreme than pro-death NARAL.


If 50% of that enormous voting block had voted with their conscience before this bill came into existence then this government waste of an amendment would not be an issue.

266 The reading on the politics is wrong here.

Suppose the Stupak-Pitts - "coathanger amendment" - is subtracted in conference.  The choicers that want it out have 41 signatures to vote against Pelosicare.  That 41 doesn't mean much because not one of them was part of the 240 votes in favor of the SP amendment.

Pelosicare can't pass without Stupak-Pitts.  If Pelosi feeds the choicers she loses.  If she stands with the lifers she gets a bill.

The civil war would start in the Democratic Party.  Isn't this a good thing?

Is there any chance in hell that the prochoice millionaires club just goes away?  They're going to primary challenge the pro-life Dems.

267 If it's no bigger of an issue why is everyone talking about it today? Would we be having this conversation if the amendment failed? How would the "Pelosi bill funds abortion" talking point work if it was the R's that decided to let the bill fund abortion?

The issue we are talking about is not the Democrats violating their promise or losing the vote but why the GOP passed an amendment to spare the Democrats a split.

If the vote on the amendment had come out differently, we would be having a different conversation, maybe even one about the trouble the Dems are in.

That's why the R's should have voted Present (good enough for Obama, good enough for us!). Then the only on record votes would be the Democrats.

You know, it's not like the public doesn't already get the Republicans are opposed to abortion. One tactical vote isn't going to change 30+ years of the MSM drilling that into people's minds.

268

And what wonderful things would supposedly have happened if they had abstained?

In other words, they didn't have to vote against Stupak. Stupak was playing politics with life, and House Republicans could have called it out as such and chosen not to participate. I don't know if that would have gotten the votes or not. I'll have to look at who voted.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope this becomes a wedge issue for Democrats. But since Wilson, progressives have been willing to tell "noble" lies to get their agenda through. They comprimise on this (2nd amendment), scuttle the message on that (Bob Casey, Jr. being "pro-life") and win in the end when they get their "center" people elected.

269 Ace, Allahpundit, DrewM--you guys are not the parliamentary tacticians you seem to think you are. The Republican leadership knew just what they were doing.

As they are saying, Republicans voting present would have resulted in two things:

First, the Blue Dogs, feeling appeased at the chance to record a "yes" vote on the Amendment, would have turned around and voted for the bill anyway, as they made abundantly clear before and after the vote.

Second, Republicans would be justifiably vulnerable to charges of "playing politics" with life, weakening their position in their own districts. Imagine a debate in a socially-conservative southern district between a pro-life Republican and a moderate Democrat. The Democrat would be able to hammer the guy over the head with this vote, and imagine trying to explain the intricacies of parliamentary tactics in a debate forum in front of everyday voters.

It would never work. It would make Republicans look disingenuous, while serving no purpose in the health care debate except to ensure that the House bill funds abortion with taxpayer money.

270

You lie about me and when confronted with that lie, you simply change the accusation

It's hardly my fault that you don't pay any attention to the words you yourself write.

But for the record, I'm not "changing" any accusation. You have lied repeatedly about what the GOP leadership said, and I have called you on it repeatedly.

271 The issue we are talking about is not the Democrats violating their promise or losing the vote but why the GOP passed an amendment to spare the Democrats a split.

The Democrats are split.  Are you not consuming any of the news today?

And about that everify thing in the Senate....

Drew: The splitting of the Democrats is only just beginning.  Where does that split originate?

The GOP vote for Stupak-Pitts.

272 If the Dems won the vote without the amendment then we wouldn't be talking about abortion today. We would we focused on what happens in the Senate.

Now we are focused on what happens in the Senate including what they do with the abortion issue.

The only benefit to voting present would have been if the Bill failed as a result. I don't think there was any indication that that would have happened. Pelosi may have liked the amendment because she thought it would give cover to her pro-life contingent, but I think that was shortsighted.

Now the Stupid Amendment is the bar for the pro-life contingent to pass in the final bill.

273 We've also lost the "Pelosi's bill sucks because it finances abortion" talking point.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 09, 2009 03:53 PM (FCWQb)

The Democrats are going to give us back that talking point in conference, and how.

274

The issue we are talking about is not the Democrats violating their promise or losing the vote but why the GOP passed an amendment to spare the Democrats a split.

 

It did not spare the Dems a split, you dope. Did you bother to look at the rollcall of the vote? The Dems are split, and the vote here highlighted it.

If the GOP had sat on their hands the Stupac amendment would have failed, about 200 to 60. And the Dems would still have been split, and they'd still have sent the bill to the Senate.

275 Drew,

I don't disagree with you because I'm pro-life, but because the more I see you write, the more I see that you're a piss-poor political strategist. 

There was no realistic chance to stop this in the House.

I put that there so you could think about that while castigating legislators for voting for the morally right thing (for them).  By all means, let's randomly piss off a large, highly motivated portion of the base for a hopeless stratagem.  Who's the "maximalist" now.  You're a pragmatic extremist!11!!!!!11!!!1  If you're going to play Sun Tzu on the interwebs, you'd be well advised to learn a bit from the Art of War.



oh, and christmasghost, this:

The Catholics were democrats before the democrats were even invented. They want their people ignorant and preferably illiterate because then they need the church......sound familiar?

is particularly lovely.  You visiting from LGF?

(I know you've been around here for a while, that's an insult).

It's not like guys like Aquinas and Lemaître were all that bright.  Yeesh.

Idiot sheep all.

276 Shooter McGavin

First, the Blue Dogs, feeling appeased at the chance to record a "yes" vote on the Amendment, would have turned around and voted for the bill anyway, as they made abundantly clear before and after the vote.

Ok, and then we could have spent the next few weeks hammering them in their district for voting yes on a bill that funded abortion. That's something those Democrats obviously would have preferred to avoid.

That's playing politics. The House GOP is against that. I'm for it.


Second, Republicans would be justifiably vulnerable to charges of "playing politics" with life, weakening their position in their own districts.

Again, if people don't get the fact that Republicans are pro-life by now they are never going to get it.

Also, this is my point...House Republicans think it's more important to be anti-abortion than anti-socialized medicine.

Defeat socialized medicine and it won't fund abortions. The GOP was treating the symptom (abortion funding) and ignoring the disease (socialized medicine)

It would never work.

We'll never know because the House GOP declined to 'play politics'.

277 Drew: "We gave up a chance, no matter how slight, for nothing we wouldn't have had anyway"

Except a challenge in teh primaries for the semi-squishy GOPers (whose assholes you lick daily) who didn't vote for it, and the chance of the thing passing without any chance to keep abortion funding out of it, no matter how temporary. 

It sounds like a win to have passed the amendment no matter, since at least now there is a chance of the funding ban surviving reconciliation.  If you're aggressively pro-choice, which you seem to be under a veneer of "pragmatism", just admit as much.

278 The Democrats are going to give us back that talking point in conference, and how.

Again, 'we'll fight tomorrow, just not today'.

Why exactly are we giving up weeks or months of this talking point?

279 Meh. I think you're being a Maximilianist on this, Drew.

280 Drew, your assumption is that the Bill would have gone down without Stupak. 

You have provided exactly ZERO evidence for that assumption.  The Right now has SOMETHING of a win in the bill.  The burden is on you to prove that minor win was not worth the alternative.  You have to show that your alternative (bill failure) was more likely than not without the amendment. 

All indications point to the fact that YOU ARE WRONG.

281 If you're aggressively pro-choice, which you seem to be under a veneer of "pragmatism", just admit as much.
moron # 12342615

I love how you geniuses always think you know what others really believe.

Here's what I believe, federal funding of abortions in this health care bill is a sideshow to the actual fight of defeating this health care bill.

I'm not interested in taking a pass on any possible opportunity. I'm not willing to take a pass on a vote because there'll be another. I'm not willing to take a pass on weeks of beating up on Democrats because we will be able to at some point in the future. In short, unlike the House GOP I am willing to "play politics" since that's the game.

282

Also, this is my point...House Republicans think it's more important to be anti-abortion than anti-socialized medicine.

Your nose keeps growing longer, Drew. Get that abortion chip off your shoulder. It makes your analysis of poltics useless on an issue where its involved.

283 Drew, your assumption is that the Bill would have gone down without Stupak.
moron # 4351234

Are you illiterate?

Try "Control F" and search my name. You'll see how many times I said something to the effect of, "it was a long shot" or "it likely wouldn't have worked".

There are a limited number of votes on these bills and they get harder to defeat each time as the pressure to pass it becomes greater.

We don't have any chances, NO MATTER HOW SLIM, to waste.

284 Here's something to consider...Pelois knew this would pass and she was okay with it. She was willing to live with this rather than the alternative.

Why exactly are we giving her something she's ok with?

Oh right, because the GOP 'doesn't play politics with life'. Unfortunately, the Democrats do.

And yes runninrebel, I know, you don't think she's very smart. 

285 I said "seem" precisely because I don't know.  All I have to go on is your disproportionately vehement condemnation of making it more difficult for some Dems to vote on a bill.

 Again, it's retarded to lose a brigade on a "hunch" or "opportunity" rather than accept a minor win in a losing battle.  Unless you know the whip count on the bill without Stupak, and know that it would have gone down, you're not acting strategically, you are gambling.  Gambling is not how legislative victories are won. Never go into battle without knowing the enemy, and yourself.

But by all means, keep getting pissy at people who challenge you.  Thin-skinned-ness is such an attractive quality, as we all have seen from el Presidente.

286 Me? I want to try to defeat it every time it comes up.

But that just makes me a RINO and anti social-con or something.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 09, 2009 03:40 PM (FCWQb)

Once Pelosi agreed to let Stupak bring his amendment to a vote, the strategy you advocate -- the GOP members voting 'present' -- would have been an all-in bet that Pelosi couldn't get 23 of the pro-life Dems (of the 63 that voted for Stupak) to put getting a socialized medicine program ahead of their pro-life interest.  And that after gaining the cover of, "Hey, I voted for the Stupak Amendment, so I did my best to protect the unborn!"

Do we really believe that Democrats are so gung-ho about principles that Pelosi wouldn't have been able to get that done?

This isn't about RINO vs. social con, this is about whether it's always the best tactical decision to attack at every opportunity, or whether it sometimes makes sense to make other tactical decisions for long-term strategic advantage.  You and Ace say the GOP House leaders made a strategic error -- I and others say that they didn't.  Time will tell which of us is right.

287

I love how you geniuses always think you know what others really believe.

Christ, Drew, if you wrote it in letters of fire two hundred feet high across the sky, it could not be more clear what you believe.

I just wish you would not inject your personal feelings in cases where they don't belong. It would be nice if you learned to make a distinction between your personal feelings and good politcal tactics.

288 "We don't have any chances, NO MATTER HOW SLIM, to waste"

I did see it, and that's why I'm making my comments. 

Such is not a legislative strategy.  It is gambling.  And foolish to boot.

Piss off NRTL for a "slim chance" that "LIKELY wouldn't have worked."

Brilliant, General Burnside, brilliant.

Send another brigade into teh teeth of the Rebs?  After all, there's a SLIM CHANCE that the confederate right won't hold . . .

289 Piss off NRTL for a "slim chance" that "LIKELY wouldn't have worked."
Posted by: moron # 21351234 at November 09, 2009 04:34 PM (p1s9n)

I presume you meant the National Right to Life Committee.

I'm glad to see someone admit this was a trade off between appeasing an interest group instead of taking a shot at fighitng Pelosi care.

You know what would have be fun? If the NRLC had been adults and decided not to score the Stupak vote. There's no law saying they had to, it was a choice. They could have held off on that for final passage but they didn't.

I've been reading all day how this isn't the real vote, it doesn't matter, we'll get 'em next time! Nobody thought to mention that to the NRLC, the Family Research Council and others?

Why not get mad at them for boxing Republicans in?

290

I'm glad to see someone admit this was a trade off between appeasing an interest group instead of taking a shot at fighitng Pelosi care.

 

Ho hum, another Drew comment, another lie. Moron # 21351234  did not "admit" any such thng.

291 Because it's their JOB to box lawmakers in.  They are an INTEREST group. 

Again, unless you can prove that it was a bad bargain, it it still a minor GOP win in an otherwise complete shitstorm. 

Don;t pretend to give advice unless your shit is in order.  Stoking antagonism against NRTL might serve your own private ends (again I'm assuming, since that is the logical assumption to be made from your illogical anger at this vote, and it is illogical since you cannot even begin to prove that defeating teh amendment would defeat the bill), but it's not cogent analysis.  THIS BILL WOULD HAVE PASSED ANYWAY, and you'd be opening up a lot of Rep lawmakers to primary challenges.  It's not NRTL's fault that the Republicans are so far in the damned hole in the House (see Foley, Mark). 

You're just a piss-poor, amoral political strategist masquerading under a "tough and pragmatic" costume.

292 Ok, and then we could have spent the next few weeks hammering them in their district for voting yes on a bill that funded abortion. That's something those Democrats obviously would have preferred to avoid.

That's playing politics. The House GOP is against that. I'm for it.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 09, 2009 04:18 PM (FCWQb)

Let's go with your assumption that each of these particular Democrat House members has a substantial bloc of constituents who care deeply about abortion, and that each of these members listens to what that constituent bloc has to say.

So now it's equally possible to play politics by hammering the Democrats who voted for Stupak in their home districts that we will keep them to the promise they made to prohibit Federal funding of abortions.  They are on the record voting for Stupak, so get their constituents to tell them that if they reverse themselves and vote for a conference report that doesn't have Stupak, they're going to lose their seats in the next election.

No?

293 Because it's their JOB to box lawmakers in.  They are an INTEREST group. 
Posted by: moron # 2346523 at November 09, 2009 04:46 PM (p1s9n)

Bully for them.

I want to box lawmakers in to fighting Pelosi care. That wasn't the goal of the anti-abortion groups on Saturday.

294 That's like saying the NRSC wasn't serious about winning because they didn't send $5,000,000 to Chuck Schumer's challenger last election.

295 I've been reading all day how this isn't the real vote, it doesn't matter, we'll get 'em next time! Nobody thought to mention that to the NRLC, the Family Research Council and others?

Why the presumption that this is the first legislative battle the NRLC, FRC, and others have participated in?

Rep George "100% Planned Parenthood Action Fund" Miller is telling his prochoice caucus to wake up and smell the prolife majority.

296 So now it's equally possible to play politics by hammering the Democrats who voted for Stupak in their home districts that we will keep them to the promise they made to prohibit Federal funding of abortions.  They are on the record voting for Stupak, so get their constituents to tell them that if they reverse themselves and vote for a conference report that doesn't have Stupak, they're going to lose their seats in the next election.

stueic
If the Republicans had voted Present, we would have gotten 3 things...

1-What you just said, Democrats on record supporting Stupak. A promise we could have used come final passage (if we get that far)

AND

2-A bill that passed the House which would have allowed for public funding of abortion.

AND

3-Democrats who supported Stupak on record voting for that bill which would have allowed funding for abortions.


By passing Stupak for them, Republicans gave up 2 and 3 and got nothing solid for it.

We  also might, though it's unlikely, have defeated the bill or gotten it pulled.

297 Why the presumption that this is the first legislative battle the NRLC, FRC, and others have participated in?

WTFCI,

How exactly have I presumed that?

298 And in exchange, what did the Republicans voting for it get?

1.   A bill that will have to have a funding ban stripped (even if it's not important to you, it is important to them).

2. An important pro-life vote for next year's election, where a lot of them will need it to forestall primary challenges that will be encouraged by anti-incumbent fervor (BTW, I've been predicting since August that the House will go R in 2010, but that anti-incumbency can cut both ways)

Drew, the burden is on you to show it was a bad deal.  You continue to be unable to do so.

If ifs and buts were fruits and nuts, no one would go hungry. 

All funding bills originate in teh house.  how about the next Congress refusing to fund the Pelosicare monstrosity?  If we're going to be pulling facts out of our asses, let's make it a fun game.

299

Does anyone know of a single pro abortion Democrat that voted against this Pelosi bill because it excludes abortions? I suspect that Stupak did not reduce the number of votes from pro abortion Democrats for the Pelosi bill.

The only reduction in votes had to come from pro life Democrats. The failure of Stupak amendment would have made the Catholic bishops oppose the Pelosi bill and provided cover for pro life, especially Catholic, Democrat fence sitters to vote NO. That may have been only a few votes but it was all that was needed.

 

300 I've been reading all day how this isn't the real vote, it doesn't matter, we'll get 'em next time! Nobody thought to mention that to the NRLC, the Family Research Council and others?
DrewM. at November 09, 2009 04:40 PM

Did I misinterpret what you're implying?

301 WTFCI

What I meant by that was some people have been saying this isn't the 'real' vote or this wasn't an important one so there was nothing lost by not putting the 'pro-life' Dems to the test.

I was just simply pointing out that argument could have been used to get the anit-abortion groups to stand down a bit on Stupak and give the Republicans some room to maneuver.

Obviously the NRLC, FRC, et al have been around for awhile and been in previous fights.

302

Not my style, podna. No "tactical" votes on principles as important as life, guns, and taxes. Just not gonna do it.

Because then they aren't principles anymore - just guidelines. Just words. 

303

I was just simply pointing out that argument could have been used to get the anit-abortion groups to stand down a bit on Stupak and give the Republicans some room to maneuver.

 

Maneuver for what? The logic of your position is that the GOP should have voted for abortion in the healthcare bill and that the Dems should have voted against it.

Again, your abundant comments on this thread make it clear that you are allowing your animus against the pro-life movemt to cloud your thinking.

 

House Republicans think it's more important to be anti-abortion than anti-socialized medicine

 

I mean, really - what the fuck? You were going on like this on the first Stupac thread, but I thought you'd calm down in time. At this point you need an intervention.

304 299 

Kucinich.

305 The Republicans did the right thing supporting Stupac. So what if it helped pass Pelosicare; we stood on principle, that's what is important. We'll defeat this bill sometime in the future. I just know it.

306 No deep thoughts but, Congresswoman "Wasserman" Schultz is kind of spooky. Wonder  if Wasserman is one of those cruel nicknames from a past positive test for syphilis. Or is that just a missing hyphen.

307 The President is moving against Stupak-Pitts.

He doesn't know the law though.  He still thinks Hyde is what it isn't.

The President might need to convene a meeting of the Harvard Law Review to educate the editor, again.

308 moron.....
 LGF...oh, that's terribly clever. And then you think you have to explain your own "wittiness"...how droll.
Why instead of going all "you talking smack about Christians here?" [when I am not] on me why don't you just explain, using that huge brain of yours, how this statement is even remotely inaccurate?
 "The Catholics were democrats before the democrats were even invented. They want their people ignorant and preferably illiterate because then they need the church......sound familiar?"

 Go ahead genius...this I have to hear....
 And BTW, as I believe  Drew has already said, your ability to know what others are thinking or even comprehend it seems terribly limited.
 What I have to ask is are you one of those terribly slow people that just figured out yesterday that LGF is a slime pool and that's why you are A. here, and B. accusing me of being from LGF?
 Are you freaking kidding me?
 I gave mad king charles an aneurism...you really don't get out much do you?

309 Well, it looks like Barry has called Stupak a no-go.  Seems that he can now conceive of the idea that [many] women will be forced from their current plans onto a government option, after all.  And with Stupak, they'll have to pay for their own abortions, while their pre-ObamaCare health plans paid for it. 

This is a no-go since it "changes the status quo." 

310

Age of Conan CD Key
Aion Online CD key
Champions Online CD Key
Call of Duty II CD Key
Company of Heroes CD Key
Counter - Strike CD key: http://www.cdkeyexpress.com
Diablo 2 CD Key: http://www.cdkeyexpress.com
Fallout 3 CD Key
Grand Theft Auto IV CD Key
Guild Wars CD Key
Nexon Cash for MapleStory: http://www.cdkeyexpress.com
Red Alert 3 CD Key: http://www.cdkeyexpress.com
StarCraft CD Key: http://www.cdkeyexpress.com
The Godfather II CD Key
The Sim 3 CD Key
Titan Quest CD Key
WarCraft3 CD key: http://www.cdkeyexpress.com
Warhammer Online CD key
World Of Warcraft CD Key
http://www.cdkeyexpress.com

Burberry scarf: http://www.scarves-store.com
silk scarf: http://www.scarves-store.com

311 Buy discount ugg shoes
cheap ugg shoes
cheap ugg
ugg rainier
buy ugg
ugg usa
discount ugg boots
ugg 5825
ugg shoes sale
ugg sundance
ugg shoes
cheap ugg boots
ugg 5815
ugg sale
ugg uk
ugg knightsbridge
womens ugg boots
ugg boots
ugg australia
ugg 5819free shipping

312 nike dunk sb

Do anything needed to support an idea, a good idea usually brings good results, doing

business is like that.http://www.dunksky.com/.This site has always been on

313 buy [url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-coquette-casual-shoes-c-22]ugg rainier[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]buy ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg usa[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-short-c-1]ugg 5825[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-sundance-c-5]ugg sundance[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-tall-c-3]ugg 5815[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg uk[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-knightsbridge-c-27]ugg knightsbridge[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]womens ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg australia[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-cardy-c-2]ugg 5819[/url]from usa

314 nike sb high
nike dunk high
nike dunk low
nike dunk sb
air force one
nike air
air force nike
six rings shoes
Jordan Six Rings
air jordan six
NBA Shoes
Nike Kobe IV Shoes
Nike LeBron VI Shoes
supra shoes
supra skytop
discount puma shoes
puma sandal
prada shoes
prada men shoes
gucci shoes
women gucci shoes
discount gucci men
obanma shoes
lacoste shoes
ATO Matsumoto Shoes

315 UGG BOOTS

316 mbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
buy mbt shoes
shoes mbt sale

317 The proper function of man is to live, but not to exist.ugg classic cardyConquer fear of death and you are put into possession of your life. ugg classic tallThere is a time to speak and a time to be silent. ugg knightsbridgefree shippingmbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
MBT M.Walk

318 hot news for brand shoes online store ,do you want to win more discount ?and popular for younger,and nike air maxwith top quality A ,come on all air max shoes with lowest price for highest quality !

319 Everything dynamic and very positively!
Ugg Classic Cardy,discount, free shipping!

320 The cheap ugg boots sale for women are stylish, they are comfortable and what¡¯s more, they keep your feet. theres a pair of fellow sufferers,ugg australia uk to complement your personal preferences, why do we not take the traditional high discount ugg boots on salefor cold winter?
As a matter of fact, with the passing time, the love for ugg usa is increasing among girls in this modern world. The growing demand for these womens ugg made the manufacturers UGG Boots Sale to revamp the looks of these boots with different hues.come our website and buy a pair of ugg uk.UGG Classic Cardy are popular as shoes for cowboys. The SHOES close the whole parts of the foot. The ugg cardy are important to protect your feet from any dangerous things during your walking activities. There are many oatmeal ugg available in the Market and if you are interested to get one you can directly go to the store that sells it.

321 discount ugg boots
ugg boots outlet
cheap ugg outlet
cheap ugg boots
ugg classic tall
ugg bailey button
ugg rainier
ugg classic cardy
ugg classic crochet
ugg classic mini
ugg classic short
ugg classic tall
ugg nightfall
ugg sundance
ugg ultra short
ugg ultra tall
ugg boots 5389

322 Today ugg boots online have become a phenomenon.Every winter,the ugg classic crochet are one of the hottest goods in the market all over the world.So now don't be hesitation,own a pair of ugg usa immediately.

323 We supply authentic discount Lacoste Shoes
Lacoste Trainers
New Lacoste
Lacoste Sale
Mens Lacoste
camden lacoste trainers
lacoste trainers shoes
lacoste camden retro
camden lacoste trainers
lacoste carnaby shoes
lacoste carnaby retro
lacoste shoes sale
New Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoes online
cheap Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoe
mens lacoste shoes
Lacoste Shua Lace
Black Lace shoes
white Lace shoes
lacoste swerve shoes
White Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoes sale
Cheap Lacoste shoes
Lacoste Women Shoes
Women Lacoste Shoes
Lacoste Shoes online
on line, cheap price,Top quality,Free shipping!

324 Replica Raymond Watches | Replica Michele Watches | Watches Girard Perregaux Fashion | Chopard Fake Watches | Richard Mille Replica Watches | Rado Fake Watches | Baume & Mercier Replica Watches | Watches Breguet Fashion | Replica TAG Heuer Watches | Watches Audemars Piguet Fashion | Replica Blancpain Watches | Watches Roger Dubuis Fashion | Movado Fake Watches | Replica Concord Watches | Watches Maurice Lacroix Fashion | Bedat & CO Replica Watches | Replica Michele Watches | Hublot Fake Watches | Bedat & CO Replica Watches | D&G Belt Replica Watches

325 Replica Fashion Movado handbags | Luxury Tag Heuer handbags | Christian Dior Replica bags | Chanel Replica bags | Replica Tissot Handbags | Piaget Replica bags | Replica A Lange & Sohne Handbags | Replica Raymond Handbags | Replica Fashion Porsche Design handbags | Luxury Seiko handbags | Luxury Jacob & Co. handbags | Best Richard Mille bags | Zenith Fake Handbags | Best Cartier bags | Luxury Mont Blanc handbags | Rolex Replica bags | Replica Fashion Porsche Design handbags | Breitling Replica bags | Best Cartier bags | Luxury Panerai handbags | Replica Fashion Chanel handbags | Replica Fashion Gucci wallet handbags | Replica Richard Mille Handbags | Luxury Emporio Armani handbags | Luxury Jaeger LeCoultre handbags

326 Luxury Chloe handbags | Luxury Louis Vuitton Sport handbags | Replica Gucci Handbags | Luxury Chanel Wallets handbags | Replica Fashion Louis Vuitton Monogram Multicolore handbags | Luxury Chloe handbags | Luxury Gucci Watches handbags | Best Louis Vuitton Cuir Taiga bags | Best Dunhill bags | Luxury Balenciaga handbags | Best Fashion bags | Chanel Wallet Fake Handbags | Dolce & Gabbana Replica bags | Chanel Wallet Fake Handbags | Luxury Hermes handbags | Chanel Fake Handbags | Luxury Chloe handbags | Luxury Hermes handbags | Best Chole bags | Luxury Hermes handbags | Marc jacobs Fake Handbags | Replica Jimmy Choo Handbags | Luxury Fendi handbags | Luxury Louis Vuitton Leather handbags | Juicy Couture Replica bags

327 Un total de once comunidades autnomas estn este jueves en alerta naranja Christmas gift ugg tall boots (riesgo importante) por nevadas y bajan las temperaturas en toda Espa09a, segn la Agencia Estatal de Meteorologa (AEMET). En concreto, se Christmas gift ugg napoule sandal trata de Aragn, Cantabria, Castilla-La Mancha, Catalu09a, Christmas gift timberland classic boots Madrid, Navarra, Comunidad Valenciana, Galicia, Pas Vasco, Asturias y Murcia. La cota de nieve bajar a menos de 200 metros en el CantbricoLa Pennsula Ibrica est bajo dos borrascas y un anticicln que crearn un pasillo que permitir el paso de una corriente de aire muy fro, como la que est provocando un temporal de fro glaciar en Europa, aunque es esperan que el fro que suframos no sea tan intenso como en otros pases. An as, se espera que las bajas temperaturas se mantengan hasta el domingo. La cota de nieve baja en el Cantbrico a menos de 200 metros

328 Hair Straightener
chi hair straightener
chi flat irons
chi iron
best hair straightener
ceramic hair straightener
flat iron
pink chi hair
chi hair irons
ghd
Pink GHI Hair
GHD
GHD MK4
GHD MK5
Pink GHD
Pink GHI Hair
CHI Flat Irons
Hair Straightener
chi hair irons
chi hair straightener
best hair straightener
chi hair iron
pink chi hair
chi hair irons
Pink GHI Hair
Pink GHD
GHD
Nike Kobe Shoes
Nike Lebron Shoes
discount nike shox shoes

329 nike max
air max shoes
nike air max
nike max shoes
air max 1
nike air max 1
air max 2
nike air max 2
air max 89
nike air max 89
air max 90
nike air max 90
air max 91
nike air max 91
air max 95
nike air max 95
air max 97
nike air max 97
air max 180
nike air max 180
air max 360
nike air max 360
air max 2003
nike air max 2003
air max 2009
nike air max 2009
air max ltd
nike air max ltd
air max tn
nike air max tn
air max tailwind
nike air max tailwind
womens air max 1
womens air max 90
womens air max 95
womens air max BW
womens air max LTD
womens air max TN
womens air max 360
womens air max 2003
womens air max 2007
womens air max 2009

330 Certainly watches are Replica Watches used to help people record rolex Watches time, but rolex watches nowadays its functions have enlarged. Replica watches are now tag heuer Watches not only objects that tag heuer watches can tell you what time it is, they are also a status symbol. You should not feel strange when you find someone wearing a watch on his wrist, but use the cell phone to tell time. In that situation, the watch is just showing its luxurious function cartier watches. It is normal and cartier watches perhaps also happens to you. .If asked that among the watches of various brands, which one can suit your taste? There is no doubt that most people will choose Rolex. Whichever social class you are in, it is naturally Rolex was known breitling Watches and cherished breitling watches for a long time. However, the elements do not usually enter the market alone, always come with the price tag up to the hand. For this reason, many people, especially men, their dreams of luxury Rolex watches are buried in omega Watches his heart omega watches. What should I do? Rolex watches are simply stunning worn by the rich and famous, right? No, this world is not the world's richest men, is the world of each. All are equal before the search of luxury and be men's watches respected. Within men's watches, the law, when consumers are in the market, women's watches they should women's watches receive the same treatment. This is the real reason why replica Rolex watches are ladies watches ladies watches more welcome than Rolex. Because in this world are not difficult to understand that the rich are much less than people with low income, you agree with me? You are forced to nod and say with certainty that is the reality. These low-income people do not have enough money to save every month. They can not afford such luxury Rolex watches

331 nike max
air max shoes
nike air max
nike max shoes
air max 1
nike air max 1
air max 2
nike air max 2
air max 89
nike air max 89
air max 90
nike air max 90
air max 91
nike air max 91
air max 95
nike air max 95
air max 97
nike air max 97
air max 180
nike air max 180
air max 360
nike air max 360
air max 2003
nike air max 2003
air max 2009
nike air max 2009

332 Factors Replica Watches About The Rolex replica watches Oyster The Oyster is so closely get in touch with Rolex, and it is inevitably that some people think these are the only Replica watches Rolex manufacture. Others suppose that there is a single Oyster watch. But as a matter of fact, the name Oyster does not actually meant for a rolex Watches particular watch you can buy rolex watches or even to a series but to a type of case that available in some of the Rolex ranges. History The Oyster case was first released in 1926. The objective was to protect the workings of the watch from dust and moisture. Early watches were far from waterproof. The Oyster tag heuer Watchescase was an tag heuer watches innovative design to eliminate these problems. It had a new double locking crown that screwed into place. It has been compared to the hatch on a submarine. Like a submarine, the Oyster case was waterproof. In 1927 Mercedes Gleitze swam the English breitling Watches Channel breitling watches . Before she set off she was presented with a Rolex Oyster. When she arrived, the watch was still working perfectly. The resulting publicity gave the new case a massive boost. Why is it called Oyster? Legend has it that Hans cartier Watches Wilsdorf cartier watches, who invented the Oyster, chose the name because the new case reminded him of the difficulty he had experienced prising open oysters at dinner. Since then the Oyster has further, particularly advanced. Many Oyster watches today are omega Watches perpetual-self-winding, in other omega watches words, it does not require to expose the mechanism to the outside world in order to wind it. The Osyter Perpetual is one of the toughest, most durable, most reliable watches (under truly adverse conditions). It is probably the best mechanical watch money can buy.