Bart is at it again:
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) pledged on Tuesday morning to defeat healthcare reform legislation if his abortion amendment is taken out, saying 10 to 20 anti-abortion-rights Democrats would vote against a bill with weaker language.
“They’re not going to take it out,” Stupak said on “Fox and Friends,” referring to Senate Democrats. “If they do, healthcare will not move forward.”
He’s basically a political terrorist a kidnapper. He doesn’t have the votes in the Senate to get what he wants, so he’s threatening them- take this amendment out, and we kill your loved one. Steve Benen points out that it is all sound and fury, but should Stupak actually attempt to blow up health care reform because not everyone in the House and Senate is a pro-life extremist, the Democrats should kick him out of their caucus. That might seem harsh, but this is the most important (or so they say) piece of legislation the Democrats have pursued for decades, and anyone who intentionally sabotages it for his own little culture war BS should be forced to pay a price.
*** Update ***
Some of you hate the terrorist bit. Probably right and it is over the top. I apologize. But what really irritates me about this is that Stupak isn’t concerned about the actual health care bill- he’s concerned with advancing his religious agenda through a health care bill, and if he doesn’t get what he wants in the OTHER branch of Congress, he will work to blow up the whole bill. That is infuriating and wrong.
Hell, I’d even understand it if pro-choice advocates had tried to advance the ball in the pro-choice direction, and Stupak said “If they do that, I am voting against it.” But he isn’t doing that, and what he is doing is much more extreme. He is going well beyond the Hyde amendment, and then threatening to blow up the bill if people don’t follow through with his religious beliefs. He’d let tens of millions of people go without health insurance just because he couldn’t for private insurance companies to no longer cover abortion. That makes him pretty despicable in my book. And the fact that the more conservative Senate Democrats aren’t even going to give him the time of day tells you everything you need to know, if the Fox news appearances didn’t already.
RJ
Kick him out of the caucus and salt the Earth around his office.
cleek
i agree with the kicking out part. kinda (though do the Dems really want to go all PurityOfThought, ala the TeaBaggers ?)
ouch. too much. let the GOP misuse that word. and anyway, terrorism is, by definition, political.
Kryptik
Weren’t health care reform proponents being tarred as being too zealous and threatening to push for a vote against if it didn’t go far enough?
This is mostly tangental to the actual bill (especially since federal funds are already barred from directly funding abortions). Threatening to blow up the vote because you don’t get your specific language in is like spraying sewage onto the baseball field because the manager makes you play center field instead of shortstop.
Comrade Dread
Are you really wanting to adopt the Palin-ite’s playbook, Dude?
Because kicking out all of the insufficiently pure has been doing so many good things for the GOP?
cmorenc
The fact that Stupak is communicating this threat on an appearance on “Fox and Friends” tells you about all you need to know whose bed this nominal “democrat” is truly snuggled in. “Fox and Friends” is like a cross between “Good Morning America” and CNN’s morning news show, except heavily filtered and edited to please wingnut sensibilities and conform to a very right-wing POV.
In short, it’s a place NO democrat should willingly appear as a guest, except to get a chance to objectively refute some of the more inane, malignant nonsense FNC spews out in its main propaganda mission.
Hey Stupak: Fox is a propaganda arm of the hard-core partisan RNC, NOT any sort of legitimate “news” organization. But surely you knew that.
ScottRock
The UP’s a strange place–fiscally liberal but socially conservative. I can’t say i’m at all surprised that Stupak’s going all fifth column on the Dems; from the standpoint of his electorate, this is re-election gold.
Makewi
Yeah, an elected representative of the people taking a stand on an issue which he finds important is exactly like terrorism. This will likely be the most ill considered thing I read all day, thanks for getting it out of the way for me.
gypsy howell
Sigh.
Should.
But won’t.
Anymore than the Senate would kick Joe Lieberman out of their caucus or take away his plum assignments, despite his day-in and day-out douchiness..
That’s not how the democrats roll.
Sigh again.
Kryptik
@Comrade Dread:
There’s ‘insufficiently pure’. Then there’s hissyfitting to cater to the right and willing to sink your whole party’s biggest legislative task on a single issue not even core to the bill.
Mike G
Hell, after Lieberman (R-Likud) lost his primary and left the party to run as an independent against the Dem primary winner, campaigned for McCain and shit on Obama, and continues to vote against most major Dem-drivenlegislation, the Dems won’t even take away his committee chairmanships. I can’t see them having the spine to do this.
John Sears
@Mike G: R-Likud, hah. Priceless.
Zifnab
Hahahahahahahaha! Oh god. I needed a good laugh.
Yeah, we’ll kick him to the curb right after we bounce out Joe “With Us On Everything Except The War” Lieberman.
I’d love to see Pelosi put his nuts in a vice. I’d love even more for each and every one of those 10-20 rebel Dems picked up a primary challenge funded by DKos, FireDogLake, and the rest of the left wing net roots. But I’m not going to bank on it.
Stupak might be a political terrorist, but he knows how the game is played. He’s looking for an excuse to pull the trigger and flex his “moderate” muscles. At the end of the day, he’ll have more clout either way.
The best thing to do would be to sideline him inside the party and let Stupak jump ship on his own. But that’s not going to happen.
Waynski
It’s not about idealogical purity. It’s about party discipline. No pro-choice Republican would ever behave this way as he/she would know there would be hell to pay. He got his concession when Pelosi allowed his ammendment, it will be taken out in conference and if he tries to derail the final bill, I agree with John, throw him out of the caucus.
John Sears
I agree that the term ‘political terrorist’ is redundant, as I’m not aware of there being terrorism in any non-political sense.
I think Stupak qualifies as the full fledged variety anyway.
He’s playing a dangerous game with the lives and health of millions of American women, trying to steal their health coverage through the backdoor by turning any health plan that takes any money from this gigantic bill into an Abortion-Free Zone.
Stupak may use coathangers instead of nail bombs, but he’s every bit a terrorist.
cmorenc
@gypsy howell
I keep hoping that Harry Reid and the innermost circle of legitimate democratic Senate powerhorses know something about Lieberman’s true private intentions that we don’t, that they know that the petulant show in public is just that – a show to try to position himself to somehow attract a sufficient coalition of GOP and independent voters in 2012 to get reelected Senator from that state (and plan to cut him loose as 2012 nears and support a strong trueDem opponent).
Otherwise, I cannot fathom what’s in it for the Sen democratic leadership to rewardingly keep someone like Lieberman who’s such a counterproductive asshole and disloyal Judas-goat douchebag in plum Committee chairs and seats. I thought that when they organized the Senate in 2008, that was the implicit deal with Lieberman – we’ll let you stay, but you gotta get back fully on-board with our side and our program.
Unless Harry Reid really is as stupidly weak and spineless a piece of unworthy chickenshit as he sometimes appears to be.
Notorious P.A.T.
I look forward to working against Stupak’s reelection.
cmorenc
er…that’s when they organized the Senate before the start of the 2009 session *following* the 2008 elections.
soonergrunt
Stupak’s own district doesn’t want this bullshit amendment. God, I’d love to see these male abortion scolds treated like conservatives by the aliens from yesterday’s thread.
Zifnab
@cmorenc:
This.
Plus, the Senate is the ultimate good’ole’boys club. It’s total Kumbayaha in there. You commit multiple counts of first degree murder on national TV and they’ll just back slap and applaud you the next time you hit the Senate floor.
Face
I wish all of you would just face the fact that we aint getting health care reform. Just wont. House Libs wont accept Stupak’s crap, Stupak wont accept less. Senate Libs wont accept less than public option, Senate mods wont accept the PO. Lieberman wont accept anything different the status quo.
Unless this goes through reconciliation, and the House figures out their shit, this goes down in flames. Just no way to get 60 votes in the Senate, and Pelosi’s grip on her casa is illusionary.
Dems just too damn fractured as a party to maintain any semblance of cohesion.
Corey
I can hear the Candy Crowley segment on CNN now. “Do the Democrats have a litmus test for baby killers? Some say yes.”
TD
“He doesn’t have the votes in the Senate to get what he wants, so he’s threatening them- take this amendment out, and we blow shit up.”
Such actions, far from “terrorism”, actually seen par for the course.
kindness
Kicking Stubek out….well, we know Reid will NEVER do anything like that in the Senate (I’m almost hoping he loses next year ’cause he’s such a pushover) but somehow I suspect that Nancy has brass cahones & would do something if push comes to shove.
Go ahead Stubek, ride the tiger, see what it gets you….
kommrade reproductive vigor
Stupak is giving the health insurance plans someone they can really, REALLY hate. They thought plain old health care reform would be bad for the bottom line. Throw who knows how many unwanted pregnancies in there and they’re looking at some serious hurt.
Don’t worry ladies, I’m sure old Stupak will be right there for you when they make a matched set of sex chromosomes a pre-existing condition.
danimal
Stupak’s just working on getting his 15 minutes of fame. If health insurance reform needs his vote, it’ll be there. They’re all playing their parts in the kubuki theater at this point.
Sven Forkbeard
Some righteous soul needs to skillfully hide a herring in both Stupak’s and Lieberman’s offices. As they slowly rot, the smell will slowly drive the Congressmen insane (as well as be very difficult to get out of their clothes).
You want the rotting fish smell to go away? You know how to vote. And shut your pieholes, too. Also.
Dracula
Why would Stupak care if he’s excommunicated? I’m serious. He still gets paid, he still gets to vote, so what if he doesn’t get to play with the majority. Is it that he’d lose his re-election bid if he’s tossed out? That’s about the only incentive I could envision for him caring about party affiliation.
Paul L.
Strong words from someone who condemned the right for calling the Fort Hood shooter a terrorist.
Surprised Glenn Greenwald has not defended him as someone who was just punishing War Crimes.
Hasan Wanted His Patients Prosecuted
Looks like same goes for purity tests.
Democrats should kick everyone who votes with Stupak out of the caucus. It would be funny to see the Democrats lose the minority that way.
GranFalloon
@MikeG and John Sears:
Technically, should probably be “Joseph Lieberman (L-Connecticut).
WereBear
Frankly, I’m all about the purity.
People need a clear choice. Let the right have their Palins & Huckabees and screaming Teabaggers. Let the left have some real Progressives.
Let everyone in the middle pick a side.
Then there won’t be any more stealth candidates with their oxymoronic “Compassionate Conservatism.”
Let people vote for what they really want.
jenniebee
@cmorenc: Nomentum kicks up a ruckus every now and then to prop up his inflated sense of self-importance, he gets soothed and fluffed and flattered, and then he jumps on the winning bandwagon so as not to have that sense of self-importance punctured. It’s a dance, a pas de fou.
Stupak can bluster all he wants, all he’s going to do is get himself a primary challenger. Pelosi’s smart, she won’t go after him, she’ll go after the shrinking number of congresscritters he thinks he’s got behind him. And she’ll get them.
Face
Exhibit A on why there wont be any meaningful reform, not even close to a public option.
John Sears
@GranFalloon: I’d settle for ‘Joseph Lieberman, (D[ouche]- Conn)
Stooleo
I don’t know, I’m asking, wouldn’t this amendment to the bill be unconstitutional ? Violating right to privacy and equal treatment under the law. Any lawyers out there?
Martin
The house has the votes to pass it and he knows that someone in the caucus will put their boot on his neck if he scuttles the bill. He’s just trying to provide himself with as much cover as possible here.
Stoic
Ahahahahahahahahahaha! (Wiping tears from my eyes) The Dems punishing one of their own for sabotaging the progressive agenda? The very thought of it happening is just too funny.
Zifnab
@Paul L.:
Who would you say the real terrorists are, Paul?
Would the first person on your list be… the former prosecutor for the Duke Lacrosse rape case?
The Moar You Know
This is easy. Hysteria is unwarranted.
The Dems strip out the amendment. If Stupak throws a fit and derails the whole bill, so be it. Every single voter in his district will know why they are not getting health care, and they will know why.
You can’t let your party’s agenda be held hostage by one guy. And if that one guy tries, well…he’s only one guy. Any party can take out one guy if they want to bad enough. And I think that failure to pass this bill would torpedo the Dems badly enough in 2010 that they would have plenty of reason to make sure that Stupak becomes and remains unemployed.
Stupak knows all this. Call his bluff. That’s all it is, just a bluff.
mai naem
The scumball is on hardball right now. He just said it’s sad that we are talking about abortion and not about healthcare. And, ofcourse, Chris Matthews kissing up to him. He’s the one who started the abortion crap and he’s bitching about talking about abortion. I seriously, wish that a congressional rep would introduce the same restrictions on ED drugs that they are doing for abortion. Perhaps if Nancy Pelosi would show some balls and kick him out of the caucus, it would set an example for the rest of them.
John Sears
@Zifnab: Terrorism kind of requires a political objective. There might have been one in the Ft. Hood shooting, or Hasan might be completely batshit insane. Or it’s just another disgruntled workplace massacre but not at an office park.
We don’t really know what, if anything, that jerkoff was trying to achieve. Until more facts come out, calling it terrorism is a bit premature.
Comrade Scrutinizer
Stupak doesn’t have to be kicked out of the caucus for Pelosi to bodyslam him. My guess is that Stupak’s amendment got tagged onto the bill because Pelosi didn’t have the votes otherwise, and figured that the amendment would get stripped in reconciliation. Whether Stupak and the Dems that voted for him can prevent that is an open question, but if we get that far, I think there will be enormous pressure on the coathanger contingent to vote for the bill. Pelosi can really punish those who don’t vote for it, and I think she will.
My prediction is pretty much along the same line as @Face: I don’t think an effective HCR bill will get past the Senate.
kommrade reproductive vigor
@Stooleo: Think of the children. Won’t you think of the children?
Seriously, I don’t know. Medicare doesn’t cover it either. Of course, Medicare is primarily for the over-65s so the fact that it’s mentioned at all shows you some wanker made a fool of himself at one point.
Comrade Dread
Poor advice considering last Gallup poll I saw on the issue had about a third of the Democrats stating they were pro-life. If you were to really push that strategy, you’d better hope then that they don’t feel that strongly about the issue, or you will find yourself quickly as the minority party again.
Politics is the art of compromise. Which is why it infuriates all of us.
John Cole
WTF are you talking about?
@Comrade Dread: The dude is attempting to derail a health care bill with culture warrior bullshit. If someone is following the Palinite path, it is Stupak.
It would be one thing if he were not going to vote for the bill because he thinks the reforms are too weak, or because he thinks it will be too expensive, or any whole range of issues. It is another thing altogether to insert abortion nonsense at the behest of a the clergy to sink the bill, which is what he is doing.
Marc
This.
HumboldtBlue
It would be nice if we were actually talking about health care reform, but we’re not. What we’re talking about is health insurance reform and why the fuck we need to purchase insurance for basic health care in the first place.
You won’t find anyone writing about that, however. It’s not lousy health care that needs reformation it’s accessibility to quality health care that is the issue. I’ve read some of my favorite bloggers and the President himself make the comparison between car insurance and health insurance and that’s like comparing apples and Palin — one is a delicious, versatile fruit, the other is a fucking dipshit.
Why the hell I am forced to purchase health insurance in the first place has in my experience, never been explained. Why I can’t make a trip to the doctor for a checkup or treatment without going through an insurance company still boggles the mind.
I have car insurance for two reasons: 1. It’s mandated because my actions behind the wheel can lead to serious, even fatal incidents that I may not be able to cover monetarily, hence I hedge and buy some insurance for that worst case scenario. 2. I don’t have five or eight or 10 thousand dollars handy to repair my car in case it is severely damaged in a collision. That makes sense.
I can avoid paying for car insurance (don’t get me started on the fuck knuckle notion that I may be forced to purchase a health insurance policy, I don’t wanna get all tea baggy an’ shit) by not owning or operating a car. I don’t own a home, I am not forced to purchase home insurance against fire or flood.
Now please, explain to me why millions of Americans are forced into purchasing insurance for what should be a routine act — getting quality, affordable medical care. I haven’t read one article, seen one research paper on why an insurance company should play any role whatsoever in my health care, and yet, every month money is deducted from my check so that when I do go to a doctor I will be forced to await a decision by some insurance industry flack on whether or not it will be covered.
You want to reform health care then it’s pretty fucking simple. Get rid of the health insurance companies, or, at least confine their activities to insuring their customers for the catastrophic costs that come with major surgeries, treatment for disease or other debilitating or chronic issues that cost an arm and a leg, no pun intended. The cost of basic medical care, regular checkups, minor procedures, doctor’s visits and the like were like any other purchase my parents made when we were children.
The very price for basic medical services has gone through the roof and if you think those prices aren’t directly tied to the profits made by insurance companies you probably also think that we’re going to turn Afghanistan into a functioning Democracy and one day the Iraqis will greet us with flowers and sweet cakes for destroying their country.
Let’s talk insurance reform, once we get those greedy fucks under control we can turn our attention to health care.
Anne Laurie
Bravo, Mr. Cole!
It looks to me like Stupak is jealous of the attention Sarah Palin’s getting. He’s chosen to be the first ‘conservative / Blue Dog’ DINO to explicitly challenge the mainstream semi-liberal Democratic leadership, in hopes of improving his own visibility and attracting some of those “maverick-y” bennies from the Media Village Idiots. The Dems need to take a lesson from the old-skool gangstas and commit a severe and public beat-down on Bart, which would convince his fellow ‘conservatives’ to shut up and fall in line like the natural authoritarians they are. I don’t have much hope of Harry Reid understanding the simple dogpark dynamics here, but I’m praying Pelosi and Emmanuel can explain it to him. Because right now, Bart is just embarrassing the good people of the Upper Penninsula, who have more than enough troubles without Congresscritters trolling for redneck cred.
EnderWiggin
Explain why our desire to kick Stupak and Lieberman out is not they same as TeaBagger purity tests? I know it is but I can’t articulate why.
demkat620
@John Cole: I agree. Let him pull his shit and primary his ass out.
Nobody should be allowed to hold up legislation of this magnitude for anything. It’s wrong when repubs do it, and its wrong now.
p.a.
Off topic rant: After a rare good day at work and a bowl of Pho on the way home, I arrive happy happy happy. Oh look, I guess they didn’t pick up trash today. Hmm. There’s a note on (city provided) garbage can. “Your garbage will not be picked up unless your recycling bins for both paper and plastic are placed at the curb with your Big Green Can (EVEN IF RECYCLING BINS ARE EMPTY).” (my emp here)
“Note: you must leave your two recycling bins out on the curb until your Big Green Can has been emptied.”
Not: “Next week, if your cans…” Jeebus, nothing like making people hate recycling! Thanks, Providence DPW.
SteveinSC
There’s a lot at stake here. If the Demo’s don’t get health reform with some real PO then they will collapse in the elections next year. Too much time, political capital and time have been spent. DeMint will have won. I hope Pelosi and Reid know what they are doing, because god help us if people choose the tea-bagging repukes in their place next year. Compromise with these people? These people don’t want compromise, they want fail. As James Bond said to Goldfinger, “What do you expect me to do, Goldfinger?” to which Goldfinger said “Expect you to do? I expect you to die, Mr Bond.” I go with the dust-off-the-Guillotine option if the Stupaks and Lie-berman’s fuck this up.
justcorbly
The best way to deal with Stupak, Leiberman and any other Democrat who thinks he was elected to Congress to advance his own personal moral agenda is to organize and target them in their next election. Pull out the checkbooks.
Napoleon
@EnderWiggin:
For one they are not talking about kicking them out for voting against something but taking steps above and beyond merely voting yes or no to try to deny the caucus the opportunity to pass the bill. That is a big difference.
Laura W
@Anne Laurie: O/T (I guess? Who can ever tell what constitutes on or off topic on this silly site?) but you’ll never see it if I post it in your Obligatory Sarah Palin thread of this morn. I read that first thing, before I was fully awake, and for some odd reason, I thought John had written it. I was all set to be pretty damn impressed by the writing at such an early hour as it was extra-dynamic and interesting with some super cool references, and then I saw it was your piece*.
That was some mighty fine and fancy pageant
walkingwriting there, Anne Laurie!*No offense intended to John. He has his own dynamic, interesting, super cool writing style. It’s just not yours.
inkadu
I’d pay good money for a picture of Lily’s piddling on Stupak’s loafers.
She’d do it, too.
Can she walk the rails all the way to DC?
Zifnab
@HumboldtBlue:
Because you can’t front the money for $50k spinal surgery out of the spare change in your couch. Human body insurance and car insurance are similar in that they can both get very expensive very quickly.
The problem, then, isn’t the generic concept of the insurance company. Everyone gets injured or sick sooner or later. It’s just a matter of when you’re going to need that out-of-pocket claim – when you break your leg today or when you break your hip when you’re 60. And it’s why Medicare plays such a vital role in our health care system. Old people are flimsy and very unprofitable to insure.
When you do eventually turn up in the ER vomiting blood from a nasty case of Tuberculosis, we can’t sit around and check your credit scores before providing treatment. Insurance means that when a doctor saves your life, he has some degree of confidence that he’ll get paid for the time and resources he put forward to do so.
This communal sharing of risk is necessary in a world where a randomized minority of people can suddenly and unexpectedly require very expensive care for an indefinite amount of time.
Comrade Scrutinizer
@SteveinSC: And yet Auric goes ahead and pulls some high-tech-killing scheme with a “laser” (see the air-quotes?) which of course results in James getting away?
Why the hell don’t any of these super-villain types just keep their damned mouths shut, walk up to Our Hero, pull out their little gun, and pop him/her in the brain pan? Or just cut his/her throat, or something?
Needless complexity, needless drama. Makes you wonder how they got to be a super-villain in the first place.
But I ramble.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@SteveinSC: At some point, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid will have to pull the trigger, tell the Democrats that their votes will be used against them if they vote against it, and let the votes go ahead. If it fails, then all of those Dems who voted against it need to feel the force of it during the primaries.
The Blue Dogs aren’t playing this because they’ve suddenly become concerned about cost. They are trying to grab power, meaning they’re still playing by the old Republican rules. Somehow, they need to learn that this is not how people want the game played.
Notorious P.A.T.
@EnderWiggin:
The teabaggers want to kick out real, actual conservatives for not being conservative. Democrats, on the other hand, wanted to ditch Lieberman because he has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he does not, in fact, stand with the Democratic party.
Comrade Dread
While the first category of issues you list are valid to you, the pro-life issue is a valid objection to him and many others who would otherwise be willing to sign on to Health Care legislation.
So the question, if he is serious, now becomes whether or not you feel that strongly enough about the Stupak amendment to be willing to tolerate the status quo through 2010 and work to primary out all pro-life Democrats for pro-choice ones? (Assuming, of course, that the GOP doesn’t make those gains the MSM is always chattering about.)
Or whether you would be willing to take an imperfect (in your opinion) piece of legislation and work through 2010 piecemealing in reforms to plug the gaps.
Assuming, of course, that Pelosi and Reid actually do that.
Comrade Scrutinizer
s/?/.
Damn, I need an edit key.
WereBear
@Comrade Dread: Yes, you are right about compromise.
However, I was thinking about the presidential election just past, where the contrast couldn’t have been more stark.
And for once, it wasn’t a nailbiting 50/50 kind of thing.
inkadu
@Zifnab: Yup. “Insurance” doesn’t make any sense as a system for financing life-long health care financing. It just doesn’t. The “insurance” systems of Germany aren’t insurance companies; they’re just customer service and billing entities that paid off by the state. Insurance has no part in health care.
John Cole
Look. It would be one thing if the progressive wing of the party was using health care reform to roll back the Hyde amendment, or to move the ball in the pro-choice direction, and Stupak threatened to blow up the health care bill. I could understand that.
But what he has done is go far past the Hyde amendment and then said- “Hey, you pro-choicers, suck on this or I blow up your health care.”
It is bullshit, and he is a political terrorist and should be kicked out of the caucus and primaried.
John Sears
@Zifnab: I think his question is not about the basic nature of insurane, but rather, why it needs to be provided by a private agency instead of the government.
We all need insurance. We don’t need the bloodthirsty vampires at Cigna or United Health to administer it, or to set up an Exchange whose primary purpose is not to administer care but is in fact to keep said bloodthirsty vampires in business.
inkadu
The only Democrats fired up about the upcoming elections are supporting primary challengers.
John Sears
@John Sears: Hmm. I just realized I said ‘bloodthirsty vampires’, which is redundant as all hell.
Please substitute ‘fuckers’ for vampires in above comment if you like.
Laura W
@inkadu:
Lily does not “piddle”. She “goes to the bathroom”.
I’m pretty sure this was beaten to death in last night’s open thread.
I can’t say for sure as I only scanned quickly and then bailed out. The topic made me long for the days of the Cars, Computers, Cameras, Cooking, Coffee, Cilantro, (John’s) Colds, Commercials, (Steel) Cut Oats open threads.
I eagerly await the inevitable Cystitis Open Thread!
Comrade Scrutinizer
@John Cole: Just how does one go about kicking someone out of a Congressional caucus, anyway? Are there rules for that? I keep hearing from both sides that “we should kick x/y/z out of the caucus”; what’s the procedure? Does the Speaker/Majority Leader/Minority Leader/Whips (depending on Senate or House and party) issue some kind of dictat? Is there a vote by the appropriate caucus? If so, can that be a majority vote, or does it have to be a certain percentage? Or is this “kick ’em out of the caucus” business just whistling out the ass?
Comrade Dread
That’s certainly a valid option the Democrats can take if they feel that strongly about it.
I’m saying that it’s just one with a higher risk of losing HCR (demoralizing Democratic voters and reigniting endless talking points about ‘taking on too much’ and ‘do nothing Democrats’, ‘Obama’s failed presidency; etc.) and (depending how it’s handled) alienating a faction of pro-life Democrats and Catholics.
But it’s probably moot anyway, since I suspect Stupak will be given something to win him and his supporters over, even if it’s just a reinforced version of the Hyde amendment which will give Pelosi/Reid something to take back to NARAL, NOW, etc. as a ‘victory’.
If Democrats make bigger gains in 2010, I suspect this issue will resurface and the outcome will be different.
Chris
Congresscritters trolling for redneck cred
A new tag if I ever read one….Awesome Anne!!
FYWP (my first try at blockquoting..just throwing it in assuming it doesnt work)
Martin
Stupak represents upper peninsula, which isn’t the most progressive place on earth. Obama barely won the district, and Conyers only held the district because it included Detroit when he was elected in and rode incumbency after that.
Stupak will go on Fox, talk up the amendment to reach the conservatives that he knows he needs to reach, the amendment will get stripped, he’ll go on about how pissed he is (and might really be) but there’s nothing he can do, and he’ll vote for the bill in the end because it’s good for Michigan. Everybody will feel like they’ve gotten something and yet nobody got a damn thing and he’ll have covered his ass for 2010.
HumboldtBlue
And Zif, it still doesn’t explain why that spinal surgery has to cost $50,000. I can understand the skill and excellence of the majority of doctors/specialists et al and taking advantage of their skill will come with a cost, I can accept that. But it doesn’t touch on the core issue — is health care a commodity?
Because that’s what it is now, a commodity to be bought and traded on a Wall Street trading floor, but that’s cold comfort to those who can’t afford a simple checkup.
I would also argue that — This communal sharing of risk is necessary — is not a communal sharing of risk, it’s my risk and my risk alone. If I contract a contagious disease I may be forced into quarantine, that’s lessening the communal risk to others, but my broken arm is of no risk to you it doesn’t affect you in any way, and yet, instead of that broken arm costing me a modest sum it becomes a burden too large to bear because … why?
And if this communal sharing is the key, because we will all become ill or debilitated in some form or fashion, why isn’t that risk handled in a public, communal fashion?
Like I said, we’re not talking about health care reform, we’re talking about insurance reform and a reform to the manner in which we treat health care in this country. We allow our elderly to buy into a system that is fully backed by the federal government, we pay for the health care of millions upon millions of federal employees including lawmakers, and yet when we stop and look at what the rest of us are left with it makes no sense.
inkadu
@John Sears: Private insurance / nature of insurance is a mixed question. Because when the gov’t provides “insurance” it ideally:
– covers everyone
– shares the costs among the entire pool.
That’s not a model you will see anywhere in the private sector — because it’s not sustainable if you have any competition that can offer a different model, such as covering healthy people and reaming the ill. Plus you can’t tell a private company how to run their business.
Private insurance companies can play an important role in health care only on the condition that they are not private and they are not insurance.
inkadu
@Laura W: I was burnt out on creating bean recipes for the millions of the food insecure… didn’t read the thread. But I do know that basselopes, at least, do, in fact, piddle. Lily is free to do her business how she pleases.
Tsulagi
Somewhere, Joe Lieberman is laughing.
kay
@Martin:
Exactly. The U.P.
He’s also wonderful on Great Lakes environmental issues. Unsurprisingly.
I don’t want to throw him out of any caucus.
There are some great pro-life Democrats. He’s not all that great. Marcy Kaptur is a better example.
He’s behaving like an ass. Granted. But. I don’t want to purge pro-life Democrats who are great on lots of other issues, or appear to send that message.
Martin
Except that used to be the model before availability of predictive health data and data management tools became available. The insurance companies are increasingly moving out of what we would recognize as ‘insurance’ and into something looks more like a payment plan for expenses. The whole point of insurance is that some people will pay way more into the system than they’ll take out, which will subsidize someone else who will take out way more than they’ll pay in. The insurers now know enough, and can manage the system well enough to minimize the degree of risk pooling – especially since they can kill off your policy as soon as you look like a cost risk.
That’s not insurance at all. I mean, let’s be blunt about this – insurance is market-limited socialism. That’s the whole fucking point.
inkadu
@HumboldtBlue: And if this communal sharing is the key, because we will all become ill or debilitated in some form or fashion, why isn’t that risk handled in a public, communal fashion?
Because some people are better than others, and you can usually tell the difference because the better people have the money, and, therefore, health insurance. If you don’t have health insurance, you deserve to die. Well, no, that’s too strong — the better people don’t care if you die and shouldn’t be made to pay for it.
Are we seriously having this discussion in 2009? Who are you trying to convince? I think all we’re doing is exchanging health-care-reform macro’s that we’ve written over the past few months, and not listening to each other; and that’s because we are so exasperated and fucking exhausted by this whole frustrating stupid pointless dehumanizing lethal process that makes me want to start soaking American flags in gasoline in preparation for the defeat of this bill that we are just barking at the wind.
Martin
FYWP moderation!
John Sears
@inkadu: Well, private insurance companies still exist in many civilized countries, they’re just limited to either providing strictly supplemental policies or they get told exactly what, how, and to whom they can sell, which stretches the term ‘private’ to the breaking point, I know.
John Sears
@kay:
I think that term is oxymoronic, because the official platform of the Democratic Party is explicitly pro-choice.
From the Democratic Party Platform:
Regardless, we should all be able to agree the only thing Bart Stupak is great at is being a self-important douchebag.
slag
@kay: I can’t agree with that. If the Democratic Party needs to stand for anything, it’s social justice. This maneuver by Stupak runs against that principle. It’s anti-equality. Not “pro-life”. If he wanted to be “pro-life”, Stupak would be about improving access to quality reproductive care for all women rather than diminishing it for the poor ones.
kay
@John Sears:
I’m pro-choice and I think that’s a mistake. People have different priorities and that’s permitted.
With your test, you’re saying they can run (and win) as pro-life Democrats, (and they do, in certain segments of their districts) as long as they don’t actually vote or advocate that way.
I don’t see how that’s any different than the test in the GOP.
You’re going to strip them of “Democrat”? No matter the effect on any other legislation you might think is vitally important? Sorry. I think that’s nuts.
kay
@slag:
I’m not weighing in on his sincerity. I’m talking about what he’s doing. It could be purely political; ie; Democrats have a majority and the pro-life faction want to bring that in to the Party.
inkadu
@Martin: Health Insurance companies are starting to look more like the original Terminator… originally designed to help humanity, but soon will take over and kill us all. As you can see, I don’t really have any more to say.
@John Sears: Yeah. This whole “insurance” thing is a misnomer, really. I just find it frustrating that so few people understand why health insurance can never ever ever ever ever work.
Midnight Marauder
@kay:
But I don’t think that’s what people taking that position are saying. Again, there’s an extreme difference between being pro-life and, as slag said, working to improve “access to quality reproductive care for all women rather than diminishing it for the poor ones.” That’s not what’s happening here.
This goon is threatening (and, for the record, I think his “threat” is a major bluff, even moreso than it was the first go-round) to bring down all of HCR if his extreme overreach of an amendment isn’t included in the final bill. That’s something totally different from voting or advocating pro-life beliefs. That’s attempting to hold Congress hostage to your extremist views, while dramatically altering the status quo and simultaneously giving a gigantic “FUCK YOU” to a vast segment of the country.
Yes, assholes like that should be shamed publicly, told there’s no place for such shenanigans in the Democratic Party, and then left to ponder the following decision on their own:
Get your shit together or get another party.
ellaesther
Inspired by Ta-Nehisi and the folks over there earlier today, I did a little blogging about Stupak myself.
Among the many things that bother me about the abortion discourse is that there is so little discourse. There’s a lot of yelling and very little truth-telling — like, for instance, the fact that roughly a third of American women will have had an abortion by the time they’re 45. I know I had one.
So. I pulled together some links with information about the amendment and some simple ideas about activism to oppose it + a commentary I wrote about my own abortion that ran in the Chicago Tribune. If you’re interested in any of these, come on over! I’m all about abortion today. And I would love to have you guys come visit!
inkadu
@kay: What do you think John’s angry about? That Stupak is pro-choice and voting that way, or that he is endangering the single most important piece of Democratic legislation that is going to be passed in the past 40 years, as well as any other legislation that Democrats can hope to pass in this once-in-a-lifetime political opportunity?
Yes, there is room for pro-life Democrats in the caucus, if only because they can get themselves elected. But, no, there is not room for them to ram their single-issue car loaded with fertilizer into the basement garage of the entire fucking party.
(As a side note, I wonder how many pregnancies miscarry, are delivered premature, or die in the first seven days because they don’t have access to health care? I bet you it would be more lives than would be saved (by their own idiotic definitions) by his ammendment.)
kay
@Midnight Marauder:
I see that distinction. That isn’t what the commenter suggested. He wrote that the official position of the Democratic Party is pro-choice. That’s a test.
kay
@inkadu:
I agree with that. That isn’t what I was responding to. I was responding to the idea that there is an official position, and Democrats have to take it, or they’re not Democrats.
John Sears
@kay: I didn’t establish a ‘test’, and I didn’t say that they couldn’t vote the way they want when they get to Congress.
I just don’t think there’s room in the Democratic party for people who believe a fetus is entitled to more rights than an adult woman.
The Democratic Party can define itself however it wants, but by their own definition, the platform the party itself presents to the voters, it’s pro-choice. Yet we have douchebags like Stupak working from within toward the exact opposite goal. It seems profoundly dishonest to let thugs like Stupak run under the Dem banner just to eke out a few votes.
I’m glad to hear it’s ‘nuts’ to expect consistency and honesty from our politicians though.
ellaesther
And I also disagree with the term “political terrorist,” which, given that I had an argument on these boards about the proper use of the word “terrorist,” should surprise no one.
I would say “bully,” or “asshole,” or “overly-inflated douchebag with way too much power and something should be done about it.”
But not terrorist. Either a word means a thing, or it doesn’t. And my dictionary reads: “terrorism – the unlawful use of threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group again people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons,” and a terrorist is “one that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.”
Stupak’s means are legal, and they do not include violence. Bart Stupak is not Scott Roeder. They and the ideologies they rode in on need to be stopped, but the latter is a terrorist, and the former is not.
John Sears
@kay: Why is that such a hot button idea? Is *everything* in the party platform negotiable?
Could we elect a white supremacist Democrat who wants to resegregate society too?
slag
@kay: I hear that. But I’m talking about what he’s doing as well. And what he’s doing here is not only endangering poor women but anyone who needs health care provided at a reasonable cost. That’s just not acceptable.
Midnight Marauder
@kay:
And you know what? I’m fine with that test.
Again, the party’s each have to stand for something, and it’s not like being explicitly pro-choice is some new addition to the Democratic Party’s platform. And moreover, it’s not as though pro-life Democrats can’t get elected; they just need to realize on that particular issue, the will of the party is always (or at least, it should) going to come down on the side of being pro-choice. Besides, pro-life Democrats is not an oxymoron. Pro-choice Republicans, on the other hand? Quite the rare breed, especially if they don’t have a vagina (and those are already hard enough to find as is). If it really is that big of a problem for someone like Stupak, he knows who the other team is.
HumboldtBlue
Oh, and sticking with the semantics theme, can we please stop referring to abortion opponents as pro-life? They are opponents of abortion i.e. anti-abortionists. There is nothing pro-life about their arguments, their supposed moral or ethical positions or their views.
I’m an anti-war veteran, now I could make wonderfully persuasive arguments about how that makes me pro-life, but I’m not pro-life, I’m anti-war. There are plenty of motherfuckers I wouldn’t mind seeing in their graves.
John Sears
@ellaesther: That dictionary definition relies far too much on the term ‘lawful’
Under that definition there is no such thing as state-sponsored terrorism, because if a state sponsors it, it’s legal (to that state, at least). If it is illegal to that state, it’s not state-sponsored.
It would also mean that a government cannot use terrorism on its own people, which I think is absurd.
Stupak’s methods are dubiously legal, but they will certainly lead to fear, suffering and death, in order to force his political agenda on the American people. I’m comfortable calling that terrorism.
kay
@John Sears:
Stupak’s pro-life voters will admire his consistency.
John Sears
Now I have to sign off for the night. Dinner awaits.
Comrade Scrutinizer
@ellaesther:
__
Thank you. There’s way too much heated hyperbole floating around the Intertron.
kay
@Midnight Marauder:
Just as a practical matter, abortion doesn’t come up in federal legislation all that often, but it did here, and he took the opportunity to climb up on his soapbox.
I don’t agree with the posturing to kill the bill. I think it’s bullshit, frankly, and I hate dramatic threats as a tactic. I think he’s using the limelight to push “his” issue. I don’t agree with him, but it’s all permitted.
This issue isn’t going away. We seem to have to duke it out every five years or so.
inkadu
@John Sears: And there’s also the realpolitik of it. The Democrats are not elected to be a social party. They’re elected to get things done. And if someone interferes significantly enough with that, the party has an obligation to shiv the obstructionist, no matter how “big tent” it wants to be.
kay
@Midnight Marauder:
I guess I would ask you to turn it around, then. You, as a voter. A fictional Senator who is pro-choice but anti-nearly-everything-else-you-care-about, in terms of actual voting record.
He’s in? But Stupak is out? I’m not setting those terms.
Comrade Scrutinizer
@inkadu: @inkadu: The realpolitik is that, Party platform or not, there are a lot of pro-life, conservative Dems in the Congress. They may not be perfect Democrats according to progressives and even the Party platform, but they are in some cases all we could elect, and in almost every case a better choice than the Republican alternative. Like it or not, they need to be dealt with. You’re not going to change the electorate in their districts to make the districts more progressive, and without progressive voters, progressive candidates won’t get elected.
You want to give ’em the shiv? Fine. But you’ve stopped talking practical politics at that point.
Church Lady
“He doesn’t have the votes in the Senate to get what he wants, …”
If I’m not mistaken, neither do Obama or Reid.
Midnight Marauder
@kay:
No, but if this fictional Senator sounds like as big a douche as I think they do, then I would be working my ass off to sure that they faced a stiff primary challenge the next go round. And if they were “against us on everything but abortion,” what good does that do me, or any other voter? I would want the bum tossed out.
However, I will say again, the aforementioned scenario you describe is not the situation confronting us in the case of Bart Stupak. It’s not just that he’s
pro-life“anti-choice.” It’s how he’s gone about fucking things up with his amendment. The guy is a C-Street creep, for crying out loud. He doesn’t give a fuck about the Democratic Party (so it seems). Not to mention that the fact that House leadership on the Democrats’ side should have seen this bullshit coming MONTHS AGO (because he was openly talking about pulling some shit like this and telegraphing his move as early as the summertime).And I’m not saying that automatic reaction should be to kick his punk ass right out; that’s not what I’m saying. What I am saying is that the threat of doing so should very much so remain on the table and he should be getting constant reminders that if he does, in fact, try to go through with his bullshit (again), then Pelosi and Co. will be ready to crush him–in whatever way, shape, or form that takes place–on the other side. If that involves kicking him out of the caucus, I’m okay with that. Again, it’s obvious he places more value on his C-Street marching order than he does from Democratic leadership.
John Cole
@Church Lady: This is why people flame you, Church lady. If the bill doesn;t get out of the Senate, Stupak can drop dead anyway, because the bill is going nowhere. Obviously, the only time this matters is if the bill gets out of the Senate without his amendment.
In short, your comment was just insipid nonsense, and when people flame you for it, you will get all offended.
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
Where is Dave Barry’s “Ask Mr. Language Person” when we need him?
As several people have pointed out upthread, the “Insurance” companies have no idea (or pretend to have no idea) what the word “insurance” means. Insurance is cooperative gambling, where everybody pools their bets in the hope of coming out even. Of course, in health insurance particularly, the house rakes in such a huge percentage that nobody comes out close to even.
All these methods they use to determine who is more likely to need treatment and thus skew their risk should be illegal. You can get thrown out of a casino, if not beaten within an inch of your life for remembering what cards have been dealt! Give me some reason why the same fate shouldn’t be meted out to these “Health Insurance” parasites.
Secondly, “Political Terrorist” isn’t good enough for Stupak, mainly because “terrorism” isn’t what he’s doing. He’s holding the whole country to ransom, which thanks to the Lindbergh case carries an automatic death penalty.
Lastly, as John Sears pointed out, “terrorism” is a meaningless buzzword. It doesn’t even depend on whether you’re a state or nonstate actor; the only difference is relative power. Whatever methods the weaker side uses, especially if they’re not as expensive to carry out as the big-power approved methods, are always labeled as “terrorism,” cf. submarine warfare—until the big powers started using submarines, then all of a sudden it wasn’t “terrorism” any more!
ellaesther
@John Sears: Gah! This is a tough room, man! When even the dictionary isn’t good enough…!
/shuffles off, mumbling to self.
slag
@kay: But killing the legislation is not permitted. What John says here:
is exactly right. I’m a pro-choice extremist (I think abortion should be freely available to anyone anytime), and even I don’t think this bill should be used to expand abortion rights. If someone were using it for that purpose and the bill fell apart for that reason, I’d want some repercussions for that individual. I feel even more strongly about that when the person is doing so to diminish abortion rights.
kay
@Midnight Marauder:
It was going to come up. It always comes up.
There’s only one side duking it out. The other side purged the dissenters.
I can make a good argument for a pro-choice position. I know it always comes up. I don’t start from the position that Bart Stupak is a huge threat who must be controlled by leadership. I think they let him shout from his soapbox, and then they reach a compromise.
I’m not sure I’ll be happy with some artificial parameter for acceptable posturing. I don’t know where that begins or ends.
kay
@slag:
Right. I said that I agreed with the idea that threatening to kill the legislation is a stupid, overly dramatic tactic. It’s the kind of thing that drives me, especially, crazy, about Congress.
I don’t like the sanction.
I’m very wary of that sanction. There’s a better solution. I don’t know what it is, but I’m rejecting John’s.
ellaesther
@slag: slag! Thanks for coming by! And for your compliments!
'Niques
@danimal:
Makes me wonder . . . what are the chances he’s pocketing incentives to spout his nonsense before the actual vote? Maybe they all are . . . and the Insurance Mogels are going to be PUNKED!
Joel
i think stupak fails here.
as sherrod brown pointed out, the makeup of the senate is far different than the house. stupak is in john conyers’ old district (before redistricting). he’s vulnerable on his left.
slag
@ellaesther: I enjoyed it. I’ll be checking back regularly.
Joel
@ellaesther: well put.
inkadu
@Comrade Scrutinizer: My point is that sticking a shiv in Stupak may very well be practical politics. He may be a pawn that is worth sacrificing in order to get other politicans to get into line, to enforce party discipline. It’s not because Stupak’s pro-life, or that he votes pro-life, but that’s he is actively sabotaging. That has practical political effects, and it’s practical to want to avoid those kinds of situation.
If people were saying we should get rid of Stupak because he votes for a Republican anti-abortion ammendment or something, I’d agree with you — the costs there would outweigh the benefit.
But in general I’m tired of being told that Democrats don’t have any right to enforce party discipline, so I do come off very hot on this issue, especially with a razor-thin supermajority to hold together.
Jack
Triple plus good. The bill is awful even w/o the Stupak
slap in the face of womenAmendment. It’s unconscionable with it.ellaesther
Re: the update – oh. Ok then!
Indeed, I agree with every word but that one that you have now stricken. One reason it bothered me is because there has been terrorism in this fight — and not only that, but the fucking terrorists are, in fact, winning! People like Roeder and organizations like Operation Rescue have frightened people away from a legitimate branch of medicine, and women who need it — and I know you know the heartbreaking stories of women in need of late-term abortions — no longer have access to it.
That is, quite legitimately, terrorism, and the sooner we as a nation begin to collectively recognize it as such, the sooner the terrorists might begin to lose.
kay
@John Sears:
See? How is this helpful? He doesn’t want to OUTLAW abortion, John. None of them do. That’s why they’re Democrats, and not Republicans. That’s what you’re missing.
They have voting records that are mixed. They’ll back parental consent, but oppose spousal notification. They’ll back a pro-choice Justice or judge.
Without some of these people, some legislation restricting abortion during periods of GOP dominance would PASS, and the Supreme Court would be composed of exclusively fundamentalist religious.
That’s their value, and that’s why you don’t start comparing them to segregationists. They back 30 or 40 or 50% of your position. They just don’t back all of it.
Andy K
@Anne Laurie:
They lost a lot of jobs up there in the U.P. when K.I. Sawyer AFB was closed down in ’95. I’d be willing to bet that Stupak would back off if a Federal super-max penitentiary up there got the green light.
My paternal grandparents were born and raised in Gladstone- coincidentally, the U.P. town in which Stupak grew up. They moved down to Muskegon in the early ’40s because jobs had been leaving the U.P. since the expansion of the Soo Locks/end of the copper boom in the first quarter of the 20th century. The only job real job growth up there since has related to Sawyer, tourism (after the Mackinac Bridge opened), the three universities on Lake Superior (Michigan Tech, Northern Michigan and Lake Superior State), and some state penitentiaries. The Federal government isn’t re-opening the base, can’t do much about tourism or schools, but it can build prisons.
Midnight Marauder
@kay:
For all intents and purposes, the way the amendment is written, it essential eliminates the opportunity for an extraordinarily large swath of this country to access a perfectly legal medical procedure. So, while you may say that “they” don’t want outlaw abortion, their actions would belie otherwise.
John Sears
@kay: Don’t you dare tell me what percentage of ‘my position’ Stupak backs. God. Put words in my mouth why don’t you?
Stupak believes in making law out of his backward Bronze Age superstitions about what an Invisible Sky-God tells him to do. That could not be more different from my position on governance.
Plus, according to a new analysis by the pinkos at the George Washington University School of Public Health, the Stupak Amendment will lead to the death of ALL PRIVATE INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR ABORTION. Not some of it, not a little, every single plan, given a reasonable timeframe. Insurance coverage paid for by tens of millions of American women, 87% of all offered plans, in fact, will be taken away by a knuckle-dragging retard.
John Sears
@Midnight Marauder: This. Absolutely, this.
Stupak is just trying an incrementalist approach to repealing Roe. He’s a self-righteous, scheming, religious fundamentalist prick.
gex
Really late to the thread, but in some cases abortion is a health care procedure with the mother’s life hanging in the balance. Terrorist may be strong, but on the other hand, he demands that to satisfy his religious view of what is right and wrong, some women will just have to die.
brantl
He is a freaking terrorist, he knows majority of the country wants this, and he’s willing to vote against it anyway. I’m sorry. Unless there is a real morally heinous line being crossed, the majority are entitled to what they want. This little dickhead needs his ass kicked all the way up to his neck, so he has redundant cheek-warmers.