This is infuriating:
An aide to Rep. Bart Stupak (D. Mich.) coordinated opposition to a Senate compromise on the place of abortion in health care legislation this morning with the Republican Senate leadership, the Conference Catholic Bishops, and other anti-abortion groups, according to a chain of frantic emails obtained this morning by POLITICO.
The emails show that Stupak — who has so far remained silent on language accepted by Senator Ben Nelson (D. Neb.) and faces intense pressure from the White House to accept it — is already working behind the scenes to oppose the compromise.
They also demonstrate a previously unseen degree of coordination between Stupak and the office of Republican leader Mitch McConnell.
The thing I don’t understand is why his colleagues tolerate this. I can understand leadership needing to be cagey, but don’t the other members of the Democratic House have the right to go to a microphone and publicly savage this attention-seeking scumbag? Shun the guy. Refuse to work with him on anything. He wants to be a Republican, let him.
valdivia
This guy is a member of The Family do we need to say anything else? He cannot maneuver in The House the way they can in the senate this must be infuriating to him.
jnfr
Yes.
Dr. I. F. Stone
Sounds like good advice to increase the comity across the legislative branch, as well as elsewhere…
Joel
I think Stupak needs a shiny new subscription to Wetsuit Afficionado.
dr. bloor
They can’t really kick him out of the caucus, because then it becomes a whole “OH NOES! THE DEMS ARE INTOLERANT OF PROLIFERS!” dustup and obscures the real reason for doing so, i.e., working behind the backs of your own party’s leadership.
But yeah, I don’t think Bart will be getting very many bridges to nowhere in his district anytime soon…
Ed Drone
Bart who?
Ed
El Cid
Don’t forget Phil Gramm, who was removed from the House Budget Committee:
The Gramm-Latta Reagan budget was a disaster, but helped Gramm get in the position of getting his wife to help his buddies in Enron and in derivatives trading and then helping push through both the deregulation of our banking system and the complete un-regulation of derivatives. And to think, the McCain campaign relied on Gramm’s awesome economic insights until he called Americans “whiners” for giving a shit about their own economic circumstances over his buddies.
(That quote used to appear in Wikipedia, but some of Gramm’s friends must have thought it was unfair.)
gwangung
If folks are serious about getting better Democrats, primary his ass. Fire up the credit card and find a primary opponent. Surely, even in his state, you can find someone just slightly left of him that can win a general election.
BTD
They need the votes.
This is just a variation on “60 votes” John.
Indeed, unlike the “60 votes” mantra, here you REALLY need 218, even for reconciliation. In the Senate, use of reconciliation would have cut it down to 50 votes (and yes I know you can’t pass the regulatory part of the Senate bill through reconciliation absent waivers of the Bryd Amendment, which require 60 votes.)
demkat620
Why is Luke Russert on my tv?
I’d tell Bart to go and take Holy Joe with him.
cat48
So, rather than let individual states decide whether they cover abortion or not, he wants to make the decision for all 50 states. Typical C Street resident…..guess he wants to execute gays in Uganda too.
robertdsc-PowerBook & 27 titles
He represents the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. I read an account from someone who lives up there a while back that said finding anyone to primary Stupak is incredibly difficult due to the nature of the district he represents.
valdivia
@robertdsc-PowerBook & 27 titles:
at least they can make his life more difficult in the House. The dynamic there is not like in the Senate so he can go suck on a lemon.
Comrade Jake
Or they could just change his name-tag to Stupid. I’d settle for that as well.
Mike G
This template pretty much works for anything Gramm has ever touched in his dirty career of corruption and cronyism.
“The Gramm [X] was a disaster — for everyone but Phil Gramm”.
donovong
Hopefully, the fact that Stupidak is working with the Repub’s will strip away some of the support he got the first time around. Although I am not holding my breath.
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
I bet Stupak sees that Nelson squeezing for cash got him what he wanted and now he wants to get a cut of the pie.
donovong
@valdivia: Yes, but, he did manage to get his amendment on the House version. so it’s not like he is impotent.
El Cid
@Mike G: Yeah, but when Reagan Himself (hallowed be the very notion of mentioning His name) had to change approaches and raise taxes to minimize the damage caused by that first budget, that ort to have told somebuddy sumpin.
jnfr
Pelosi’s pretty good with a whip.
valdivia
@donovong:
I agree but it was last minute maneuvering with the bishops, a lot of water under the bridge and also he is now publicly working against his own party so I am hoping too that the conservadems wont be holding together given that. Pelosi knows how to get this through.
jwb
@donovong: Yes, but I don’t see why he’d be coordinating strategy with Senate Goopers if he has the influence to stop it in the House. I figure that means he believes that if the current Senate proposal goes to conference, that proposal will come out and that the House has the votes to get it through with or without his support. On the other hand, I don’t see what say the Senate Goopers will have, since they’ve basically played themselves out of the game at this point.
max
He wants to be a Republican, let him.
Ayup. I’d have started kicking these jerks out about the time of the stimulus. If they wanna be Boll Weevils, they should go all out; hell, with their help we’re gonna lose their seats anyways.
max
[‘Stick the R’s with these guys and let them moderate the R’s.’]
Midnight Marauder
This type of thing needs to become the new black in Washington over the course of next year. We’ll be a much better country for it.
Shame the assholes. Shun the war criminals.
valdivia
@jwb:
this. I think Stupak thinks he can pull Nelson back.
John Cole
@Midnight Marauder: Franken didn’t do anything to shun Lieberman, he was just following the rules. This has been repeatedly debunked.
Midnight Marauder
@John Cole:
Whelp…that’s a little disappointing. Live and learn, I guess.
Jim Crozier
I don’t understand how he has this sort of leverage and leeway in THE HOUSE. If he was in the Senate, then yes, I could see how he could get away with this shit like Nelson, Lieberman, etc. have been able to get away with it.
But Dems don’t need one extra representative in the House. I think more would be gained by making an example of this ass.
Comrade Jake
I’ve never actually seen a good explanation of how the Stupak amendment made it onto the House bill in the first place. Anyone know? What does he have, a copy of Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate or something?
Silver Owl
I expect the Dems to compromise women even more for Stupak. It’s the way they roll.
jwb
@John Cole: Yes, but seeing McCain’s outrage over the silencing of pal Joey was still enjoyable.
geg6
Why is it never surprising to find The Family working hand in hand in the best Village fashion of bipartisanship with the minions of Pope Nazi…er, I mean Pope Ratzi.
Anya
@demkat620: Didn’t you know Luke Russert is MSNBC’s health care expert. The fact that Liberal MSNBC designates this tool to cover the senate should tell you everything you know about how important health care is to our corporate media.
His shallow analysis, coupled with his uncomfortable fidgeting is painful to watch.
jwb
@Comrade Jake: There were enough Dems who felt they needed to vote for it (and wouldn’t vote for the bill otherwise) that together with the Goopers voting for the amendment the leadership wasn’t able to beat it back. But I think it was the understanding of everyone involved (except perhaps Stupak) that the amendment would be stripped out in conference, freeing the Dems who voted for the amendment to vote for the conference bill and to blame conference for stripping the amendment.
jwb
@valdivia: Getting Nelson back by working with the Senate Goopers? That’s the part I don’t get.
valdivia
@jwb: yeah it doesn’t make sense to me but who knows what they are thinking? tricks? at this point they have nothing else.
snow starting in nyc!
Comrade Jake
@jwb:
OK, that makes sense. I’d forgotten there were Republicans who cast votes for anything.
Maxwel
Pass the goddamn bill and then primary all the assholes who have worked so hard to diminish it.
If the public option and HCR is so popular this should be easy.
DougJ
Pelosi will get him back for this. She’s no Harry Reid.
mr. whipple
FlipYrWhig, if you are still around, thank you.
valdivia
@DougJ:
yep this exactly. she has cojones she does.
Midnight Marauder
@DougJ:
I have to believe that she’s been thoroughly preparing for whenever the Senate hands the ball back to her, in whatever terrible form that happens to be.
OT – Here’s a little something I came across for the next time you use a Black Jimmy Carter tag. It’s from Conservative Shirts. Who knew they could be so witty?
Edit: And should I feel dirty that I kind of want to get one, even if maybe 1 in 1000000 people I come across would ever understand the point behind it?
eemom
Benen reports the following about the latest version of the Senate bill:
“Of particular interest, note that annual and lifetime caps on benefits have been eliminated, which is in keeping with President Obama’s vision of necessary consumer protections. We learned this week that the original Senate bill allowed annual caps — a provision that was added to keep premiums down across the board — which drew intense criticism. The matter has been resolved, though the CBO found that the fix increases premiums a bit.
However, as Ezra noted, “There are also new rules prohibiting insurers from spending less than 85 percent of each premium dollar on medical care — if they exceed that cap, they need to send customers a rebate. This lowers costs slightly.”
I know I’m being a naive Obamabot corporate sellout here, but the elimination of the caps — which the left wingnut brigade were howling about last week — and the 85% — which someone at FDL is shitting on right now because it’s not 90% — strike me as really big-time good things.
Jay Rockefeller, who Ezra has rightly praised as one of the unsung heroes of this whole mess, proposed an amendment to the Baucus bill when it was still in committee that was either 75% or 80%, and it got shot down then — and at the time he gave an excellent eloquent explanation of how much good it would do. Because under the current system that folks are so eager to hang onto until Jesus returns and fixes the Senate, they’re spending, like, between 50 and 65 percent.
More evidence of what a SHIT SANDWICH this whole thing is — right guys?
Noonan
Stupak couldn’t have been counting on having his cover blown. Coordinating with McConnell is going to send other Blue Dogs scurrying for cover. He’s fucked.
Tsulagi
Simple, it’s the Democratic thing to do. It’s a stand against the far left.
Jay C
@dr. bloor:
@robertdsc-PowerBook & 27 titles:
Unfortunately, I think there’s not much anyone – House, Senate, or public, is going to be able to do about Bart Stupak – or those like him: stonewalling healthcare reform on anti-abortion grounds is just a win-win situation. It lets a red-district Dem sandbag HCR; which keeps the teabagger fringe happy – or at least un-inflamed; and basing his opposition on holy-holy “pro-life” sentiments lets him suck up to the Bishops and appear all righteous – win-win.
nogo postal
We DFH’s gots us some more friends this morning
NOW President Terry O’Neill stated, “The so-called health care reform bill now before the Senate, with the addition of Majority Leader Harry Reid’s Manager’s Amendment, amounts to a health insurance bill for half the population and a sweeping anti-abortion law for the rest of us. And by the way, it’s the rest of us who voted the current leadership into both houses of Congress.”
Anya
According to Ezra’s review of the summary document Reid’s office sent on the changes in the manager’s amendments, their are some good rivisions. Even the revision to placate that attention whore Nelson is not actually bad because it improves access to health care for rural and under-served communities. If my reading is accurate then this includes, inner cities and native American communities.
KCinDC
@jwb, John McCain gets confused about something and is overcome with irrational hostility? Certainly a rare event.
freelancer (itouch)
@KCinDC:
Feel better knowing that if he were potus, we wouldve invaded Iran in the wake of their elections last June. Greeted as liberators 3.0.
Kirk Spencer
@Comrade Jake: Basically, he convinced people he had 40 votes that would follow him on the issue.
There were enough “maybe” responses going around that it was possible.
When push came to shove, however, the number was “only” 28. That’s the big reason he’s using other means now. Unlike poker where you get new cards on the next round, he’s got to play the hand he showed — unless he can earn new cards or convince people he has new cards to play.
DougJ
Also, stupid Pollock Catholic. You don’t see Irish-Catholic politicians pull this crap.
KCinDC
@freelancer (itouch), and we’d be dealing with the recession by freezing government spending, suspending presidential press conferences, and cutting taxes for the ultrarich. And of course addressing health care with tort reform, allowing insurance companies to cross state lines and race to the bottom, and (surprise!) more tax cuts.
KCinDC
@DougJ, yeah, Irish Catholics are always reasonable. Just look at Pat Buchanan.
Violet
@DougJ:
Pollock? Isn’t that a fish? Didn’t know they were Catholic.
Jules
@nogo postal:
I think one could say that NOW’s statement is just a bit over the top.
I’m 46 years old and in all of my working years I have never had an insurance plan that covered abortions.
This is not a bill to end abortion and it is BS like this that makes people just roll their eyes when real threats come along.
scudbucket
@eemom: I’d say this change is the result of braying from the shit sandwich crowd.
PeakVT
@Anya: I saw that list. The manager’s amendment put enough back into the bill that I’ve gone from indifferent to thinking it is worth passing.*
*Offer valid only for the current version.
gwangung
@scudbucket: Maybe. Or it was something they had planned to do all along. That can be debated.
What I think is something we can all agree on is that if we elect more extremely progressive Senators, we a) put more teeth into threats to withdraw (and use it before we get to critical measures) and b) negotiate from a stronger position and c) are less hostage to dinks like Nelson.
cleek
@scudbucket:
correlation / causation, etc..
might as well attribute the current state of the bill to the weather, or to the advent of the non-foot-stamping wing of the party tellin all the foot-stampers to settle the fuck down. pick your correlation, they’re all unproven at this point.
DougJ
yeah, Irish Catholics are always reasonable. Just look at Pat Buchanan.
Yeah, but he’s batshit crazy about everything. Presumably, Stupak is sane on some issues since he’s a Democrat.
God, Pat Buchanan is crazy. I was just remembering all that Hitler stuff he said.
silentbeep
Regarding an upthread comment about Terry O’Neils statement form NOW this sticks out for me
“…a sweeping anti-abortion law for the rest of us.”
I’m pro-choice. And I understand the opposition against this. But it is not a “sweeping anti-abortion law for the rest of us.” For those that have employer based insurance, it is not going to affect them. Now, it is a perfectly good argument to make to say that what I stated is just not good enough. – that a fair argument. But that above statement is hyperbolic and not true. And I’m not to clear on what the “us” here means.
And this:
“The basic compromise is that states can impose the Stupak rules on their own exchanges, but the rules will not be imposed by the federal legislation. I’ve been assured that at least one plan in each state will cover abortion, but I’m still trying to get clarification on how that works (my hazy understanding is that at least one of national non-profit plans, and probably more, will include abortion coverage, and they’ll be offered in all states).” http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/the_abortion_compromise.html
Again it’s fair to make an argument that the details are too hazy to rely on, as Ezra admits above. O.K. But this sweeping stuff for the rest of us is not true.
However, what she says here:
“if it remains…. defeat this cruelly over-compromised legislation.” Yes, I’d like to see it defeated too.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/73083-national-organization-for-women-opposes-senate-health-bill
However, keep in mind abortion isn’t federally funded now, though some states have worked around this, so this isn’t a change necessarily from that aspect. Please see:
http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/public-funding-abortion
The Grand Panjandrum
@DougJ: Not sure about that. Plenty of Irish Catholics bishops and I would argue they ARE politicians after seeing all the meddling they’ve done over the past few years with regard to abortion. Even if the argument is weak they work directly with the Christianists in Congress on the abortion issue.
I say strip the Catholic Church of its tax-exempt status as a reminder that they can effect the political process, they just can’t get special tax treatment when doing it.
Rick Taylor
__
Well sure. But I feel the same way about Nelson or any Democrat in the senate who threatens to use the filibuster against this bill.
scudbucket
@cleek:
correlation / causation, etc..
Fair enough, given lack of evidence and all. But I still lean towards causation: it cannot have escaped the awareness of Congressional Dems that the the bill as it was constructed would likely create mass defections in the electorate as well as feed the right-wing beast.
Rick Taylor
@eemom:
__
That’s good news, and addresses many of my concerns. I still would like to see a change in the way it’s funded; taxing some insurance plans to subsidize others is begging for class warfare, and to make sure the bill remains unpopular and isn’t expanded. I hope that’s also being debated.
Brien Jackson
@DougJ:
Yes, it kind of works much more easily when your caucus includes about 250 people than when it has 60.
AngusTheGodOfMeat
Tough blog talk. Great.
I don’t think it works. I see Stupak as being the point man for a bunch of Blue Dogs in the House, who is out there as a heat shield on the life issue. If he gets thrown out of the caucus, how many of the dogs bail on final passage?
Legislation in a divided republic is pretty dicey stuff. I fail to see how brave blog rhetoric accomplishes anything other than further division and making the poison pill even stronger.
I don’t know Stupak’s district, but something tells me that he is not too worried about getting thrown out of a caucus. Let’s go the the google and see what there is to see ….
Hmm. Well, it appears that he is pretty popular back home. And a member of The Family. He is that scary breed, the Conservative Democrat. But he votes “with his party” 96 percent of the time, according to Wikipedia.
Hmm. Well, while he probably doesn’t really deserve it, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he is reckoning that HCR advocates will judge that having Choice take a hit is a price they will be willing to pay for the larger good of healthcare reform.
As much as I am Pro Choice, and I say this as a white male who is past childbearing age, ahem, I have to say, if the question came to me — Give some ground on Choice in order to get some worthwhile HCR? — I’d probably give that ground. Greater good, and all that.
Which makes him look like a pretty savvy politician, to me. And if we cannot govern by having people we disagree with be savvy politicians and pull off some wins for their side once in a while, then a Republic is probably not the right form of government for us.
I think we’d need a Benevolent Blog-Directed King for that. When that option becomes available, ring me up.
Anya
@PeakVT: offer valid for future improvements as well.
Oh Lord, has everyone gone insane? I just saw something about Michael Moore calling a boycott of Connecticut if Lieberman is not recalled? WTF, can they even recall that asshole even if they wanted
Col. Klink
Look, if Stupak is a real Republican member of The Family just find the page boy he’s shtupping or the prostitute he strangled last week and go public with it.
AngusTheGodOfMeat
@Anya:
Yeah, pretty much. But think of the cable tv ratings and blog traffic, it’s not as if no good is coming of this.
The hilarious part is, Lieberman is acting an independent now.
He formed his own personal political party. Chutzpah, at least he deserves props for that. Ballsy.
As if the Dems really have any recourse over him at all. They want his caucus attendance, and he is under no obligation to give it to them. Yeah, let’s lean on him harder. That will do the trick, as it has so well in the past.
eemom
I’ve said this b4, but the hysteria over the Stupidpak amendment — offensive as it is — is all hype and no substance, because the thing has almost zero practical effect.
Poor women already can’t get federal money for abortions because of the Hyde amendment.
Most women who can afford private insurance can pay for an abortion, which only costs about $400.
Most women do not get abortions REGULARLY enough to need insurance coverage for them.
The fuss over this is pure “kabuki” on BOTH sides (much as I hate that tired old word).
Anya
Just testing the edit and link functions.
AngusTheGodOfMeat
@Anya:
Yes, let’s boycott Connecticut.
Insurance is their biggest industry.
Okay, everybody STOP BUYING INSURANCE.
Oh oh, wait.
cleek
i think someone should kick him in the caucus.
/rimshot
DougJ
I say strip the Catholic Church of its tax-exempt status as a reminder that they can effect the political process, they just can’t get special tax treatment when doing it.
I agree completely.
Elise
I say leave him alone until we get his vote for this bill and then kick him out of the caucus AND strip every single earmark from his district in the future.
Sanka
Shorter John Cole: The Democratic party needs to squander its electoral victories over the past 2 cycles, by looking inward and becoming more extremist. Not towing the liberal party line for the extremist abortion-loving fringe of the party is for wusses.
If the Democratic faithful really believes that they’ve gained power over the past three (coming on four) years by alienating the Blue Dogs—that is to say, the moderates—of the party, so be it. If you really believe that the American people really voted for more extremism from the left as opposed to more sane governance, go for it.
The blue dogs and moderates that got the Democrats the majority will gladly look elsewhere for some sanity.
Keep it up…
eemom
@DougJ:
judging by the obscene amount of property the CC owns and doesn’t pay taxes on just here in my immediate area of northern Virginia, eliminating its tax exempt status would pay for HCR, wipe out the deficit, and still leave money left over for ponies.
If it was that or STFU about the law on abortion…..hmmm……..
eemom
@Sanka:
oh go away, you idiot instant coffee troll.
DougJ
judging by the obscene amount of property the CC owns and doesn’t pay taxes on just here in my immediate area of northern Virginia,
That’s not real Virginia, you know.
Jim
three full minutes of internet research suggests that American Catholics are almost evenly divided on the question of choice, and this nugget from ’04
suggests that the Bishops ought to STFU. Of course, what I know from my own Irish Catholic family suggests a huge enthusiasm gap. My ‘pro-life’ relatives are single issue voters, they’ve been voting against their own best interests (and, somewhat ironically, in favor of those of most of my pro-choice relatives) for going on thirty years, at least since Reagan. Still, those Catholics who are less than single issue need to remind the Bishops that whenever life begins, it doesn’t end at birth.
Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill
@Sanka: Seconded.
Lost in all this yelling was a small thing — Lieberman broke a GOP filibuster over appropriations last Sat.
This is why we keep him in. This is why the GOP throwing people out, and being all authoritarian, means they have less chance of passing any changes to the work we’re doing today in the long run.
As someone who’s sweated over a parent’s medial bills, I’m not talking from a lack of painful experience when I say that, for all this crap that Holy Joe likes to pull, there’s a dozen things that, save for his vote, would be huge. Imagine having to fight over spending and health care right bloody now? Imagine how horrid that would be? How much closer to derailing any hope for future efforts, like climate change, we’d be?
Again: For all that Lieberman likes the camera and the stupid antics, if he’d held his vote there, Health Care would be far closer to dead than it is today. Some might say that’s a good thing, but I don’t; point-blank, my family’s health care travails would have gone easier with the current Senate bill, much less the House version. Moreover, I think that doesn’t connect with the idea of him being an absolute roadblock — just a conniving SOB.
So, I’m not praising him for fuckin’ doing his job — just explaining that throwing him out of the caucus has a knock-on effect not just today, but down the road. Health Care isn’t the end of the fight, after all…
Jamie
They got to be really careful here though. Remember the House will have to vote again to accept what comes out of conference. The initial vote was 220-215. Take away Stupak and it’s now 219-216. Most likely Cao will follow Stupak, so that puts it at 218-217. One more person gets upset and the bill is dead.
KCinDC
@Jamie, yes, it is close, but maybe not quite as close as that. Often a fair number of House Dems are given permission to vote no as long as they aren’t needed for passage. Also not sure that the few who voted no from the left will really be willing to kill health care reform if they’re the deciding vote.
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
@DougJ: “God, Pat Buchanan is crazy. I was just remembering all that Hitler stuff he said.”
I was surprised this last week when Tweety asked him (regarding global warming and doing something about it) ‘do you believe that it’s every man for himself’? Pat said no so Tweety followed that up with ‘do you believe that it’s every nation for itself?’ and Pat said “Yes”.
What a nice way of saying “fuck you” to our allies around the world. His response to paying Brazil to not clearcut rain forests was pretty sad with his saying that it’s their problem if they do it so let them deal with it. Pat is all for zoning in the U.S. to prevent unwanted development (like paving Central Park over for a mall) but he wants other nations to allow companies to come in to places like Brazil and lay waste to their land.
Pat Buchanan is a tool and a pretty dull one at that.
Aine
I live in Stupak’s district. The odds of getting a progressive Dem to challenge him in the primaries are very slim indeed… unless the DNC decides to actually field and financially support such a move, and flood this area with anti-Stupak ads and op-eds in the local media. I don’t see that ever happening.
I’d say the majority of the locals here have no idea about The Family and what Stupak really stands for. Most of them are too busy watching Bill O’Reilly on Fox, although they do blindly vote Democrat for the most part. They don’t see a division between corporatists and progressives within the Democratic Party, but it surely does need to be made clear to them… and probably 90% of the rest of the country.
It’s not about Left and Right, Dems and Reps… it’s about corporatists v. progressives. Corporatists are in both major political parties (and yeah, they include the DLC Dems too, which is why people think Obama has betrayed his base, he hasn’t… his base is corporatism, not progressivism).
Luthe
@AngusTheGodOfMeat:
Which is no longer his. He basically abandoned it after the election. So a bunch of DFHs got together, said “hey, a third party already on the ballot!”, and took over.
I would love to see him get primaried out of twoparties…