Comments on: What are Stupak and Pelosi cooking up?

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:07:59 +0000

rickl: no need to apologize. I don’t expect people to read all the fine print here.

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:06:44 +0000

rickl: my guess is that, if true, it means Pelosi doesn’t need him. Or perhaps she’s bluffing or mistaken, and will need him in the end. If she does, then he will be facing quite a dilemma, if she continues to reject the enrollment corrections proposal because it will cause the lose of other votes. If he becomes the deciding vote, will he stand on principle and doom HCR? Or will he cave?

By: rickl

rickl — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:05:21 +0000

Neo: Oops, sorry. I found that link on another site.

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:03:11 +0000

rickl: I already linked to that article and commented on it in the update to the post above.

By: rickl

rickl — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:56:04 +0000

NRO is saying that the deal's off:

Stupak is 'Finished with Pelosi' [Robert Costa] Two pro-life GOP members close to Stupak tell NRO that any Stupak deals are off. They just spoke with him and they said he's finished with Pelosi. They rejected his enrollment corrections proposal.

Of course, with a man of such noble, rock-solid principles as him, that has to be taken with a grain of salt.

By: anonymess

anonymess — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:40:47 +0000

Just what sort of people do we have steering this ship we call the United States? In case the captains or pilots haven’t noticed (or rather don’t seem to care all that much): Warning! Warning!—icebergs/rocks/revolts/all of the above/and more lie directly ahead! This Bart Stupak-abortion funding business is just one more example of unbridled, unprincipled, lack of integrity, rampant short-sightedness, me-firstisms, that pass for principled anything these days, never mind principled, trusted, and responsible government leadership for this nation.

According to neo’s research, Stupak’s “ideal outcome” for and from crashing into the health care iceberg is stated as follows:

“You know, maybe for me that’s the best [that the House Democrats don’t need his vote to pass the health care bill]: I stay true to my principles and beliefs,” and “vote no on this bill and then it passes anyways [with federal monies going towards abortions]. Maybe for me [this] is the best thing to do.”

And just what principles and beliefs is this man talking about? Sounds more like Kerryesque double-speak laced with a heavy dose of self-serving rationale.

The Bay City Times (Oct. 24, 2008) in its support of Stupak’s candidacy, had this to say about Bart Stupak: “A deeper thinker than a lot of his colleagues in Washington (God, help us if that’s true), Stupak can get hung up on principle.”

Now that the curtain has opened to show Stupak’s behind the scenes wheeling and dealing with Nancy Pelosi and his “ideal” stance to come out smelling like a rose while passively accepting that unborn babies will be thrown under the runaway federal health care bus (bus, ship, whatever), his pro-life constituents can breathe a sigh of relief to know that principle is no longer a sticking point for their representative. Pragmatic, self-serving ideology apparently will take him from here. Though it matters little, Stupak’s campaign motto in 2008 was “Leadership You Can Trust!” Maybe you can, I can’t.

By: Hong

Hong — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:40:00 +0000

Sounds like Stupak is covering his as* instead of his principles. In the end for Democrats, and many Republicans, it’s all about power.

By: Elise

Elise — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 16:17:38 +0000

If this deal is structured in such a way that the House is “deemed” to have passed the Senate bill BUT with Stupak’s abortion language then the same bill has not passed both houses of Congress and cannot go to the President for signature. That’s clearly unConstitutional.

If this deal is structured in such a way that the House is “deemed” to have passed the Senate bill as is AND is “instructing” the Senate to pass the Stupak stipulation (love it!) bill, then the Senate bill is law and good luck getting the Senate to pass the Stupak stipulation. If this is the plan then I’m think Ace put it best:

Stupak: We Won’t Have a Deal Until Nancy Pelosi Commits Her Unenforceable Empty Promises to Worthless Paper

By: Cap'n Rusy

Cap'n Rusy — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:58:07 +0000

I recommend watching live coverage of the Rules Committee this morning. To my biased eye, the Republicans are making lots of points. Paul Ryan is really good. Chairwoman Slaughter seems a bit dim. Henry Waxman almost got caught asking for an “up and down” vote on the Senate bill.
I think this was an “experiment” to allow the cameras, and I don’t think they’ll do this again. Normal people don’t like watching sausage made . . .

By: njartist49

njartist49 — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:30:31 +0000

If teh Senate version of the bill is deemed to have passed the House; then the Stupak amendment is meaningless.