Still a showdown with Stupak

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 19:31


There have been no new vote announcements in over an hour.  At this point, anyone making an announcement will probably wait until tomorrow morning (such as Solomon Ortiz, a key "Stupak curious" member who will hold a press conference tomorrow morning).  There appears to have been a Friday afternoon rush to make the news while people were still paying attention.

Currently, I have ten "yes to no" votes, and seven "no to yes" votes.  That would mean the leadership needs two more "no to yes" votes to pass the bill.

Eight or nine of "yes to no" votes are Stupak bloc: Cao, Carney, Costello, Donnelly, Driehaus, Lipinski, Rahall, and Stupak.  Lynch might even be in that group, too.  Additionally, Berry, Dahlkemper, Kaptur and Ortiz are still "Stupak curious," potential members of the bloc.

The Stupak bloc is the only obstacle to passing the bill at this point.  Pelosi and Stupak talked for ten minutes today.  Additionally, Jeffery Young reports a cryptic, if still worrying sign:

Pro-choice female Dems are shuttling in and out of Pelosi's office and they won't say why.

Rep. Diana DeGette says "we're not happy."

At the same time, there are still enough undecided votes to pass the bill without the Stupak bloc.  Further, some members of the Stupak bloc might be wavering, such as Rahall, Costello and Cao.  Yet further, I agree with Nate Silver that "there's perhaps also a half-Stupak (face-saving BS to get 2-3 votes)."  We don't have to break the whole Stupak bloc, just two or three of them.  And it is possible that can be done with bullshit rather than caving.

One idea is that anyone who is a "no" on this bill, and who voted against the Stupak amendment, should receive the most pressure.  This means Adler, Arcuri, Boucher, Herseth Sandlin, Kissell, Kratovil, McMahon, and Minnick.  These eight could put an end to Stupak's influence, once and for all, but they choose not to do so.

Chris Bowers :: Still a showdown with Stupak

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

FireDogLake? (0.00 / 0)
I honestly haven't been paying close attention to the methodology folks are using to count potential votes - what's the difference between OpenLeft's and FireDogLake's counting criteria?

Join the fight to give students a real voice on campus: Forstudentpower.org.

FDL (4.00 / 1)
FDL is exceedingly (small c) conservative. They're only counting absolutely sourced, pretty much ironclad proof of intent. And since virtually all the members with any ambiguity in their stands are Democrats, FDL's list is gonna look pretty bad until the very last minute. They also seem to have a strange habit of believing negative comments to be indicative of final intent, but not so much positive comment. I think they're just trying to be ultra safe.

Openleft has the right approach: Just look at flippers. And by this metric, we're almost there. Just one or two more good flips, or one or two less bad ones. Either one will do.


[ Parent ]
Monsters! Traitors! How can they justify killing all those innocent people? (4.00 / 2)
These eight could put an end to Stupak's influence, once and for all, but they choose not to do so.

I'm waiting for the huge groundswell of criticism from "reasonable" democrats directed towards these traitors who stand in the way of the most progressive legislation of the last 50 years!!111!!one!!

Should be here any moment now.

waiting... waiting....

(((((crickets))))))



No (0.00 / 0)
opposition on the basis of human reproductive rights is OK. Its standing up for the right of humans with regard to accessible health care that is the problem.

Does that make any sense?



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Since the Senate language cannot change thru reconciliation, (4.00 / 2)
how can there be a cave?

Then the only question is will there be a promise of a separate vote?  And they still would need 60 Senators to do anything later.

Seems like any vote promise is just face saving BS to me.


Yes (0.00 / 0)
This is what Jon Cohn reported earlier today.

[ Parent ]
Scott Murphy? (0.00 / 0)
He switched no to yes according to dkos diary.  

Doesn't Herseth-Sandlin have national ambitions? (4.00 / 1)
Someone needs to pull her aside and tell her that if she has any ambitions of being on a national ticket someday, she cannot vote no on health care. This is a core party priority and it's not something that will just go away or be forgotten in the future.

I realize it's a tough vote, but she's young enough, and SD is a small enough state that she could arguably come back even if she loses this year. And besides, Tim Johnson - who represents the exact same constituency - voted yes.  


Lynch must be Stupak! (0.00 / 0)
That's why he's rambling rationale for switching makes no sense.

According to Wikipedia:

He has a pro-life voting record and he received a 25% pro-choice score from NARAL in 2006. He is also strongly pro-labor and has focused on bringing manufacturing jobs to his district.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

He's with Stupak and he doesn't want his constituents to know.


Speculation is .... (0.00 / 0)
he's running for Brown's seat in '12. He either, a) wants the "moderate" cred without pissing off the pro-choice Dem primary voters; or b) (much more likely imo) he's a slimy hard-baller who tried to get Obama and/or Dem Senate leadership to promise him a clear path to the nomination for his vote, and they called his bluff.

[ Parent ]
He wants Ted Kennedy's seat after trying to kill healthcare? (0.00 / 0)
Good luck with that!  He'd have no chance in the primary....

Something's up with him... I don't know what... My first thought was that he's trying to be Scott Brown II to protect his blue collar seat, but I think you're right... there's something more to this...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
you've done (4.00 / 1)
a nice job today Chris.

I applaud your hard work.  


Is this about getting Cao? (0.00 / 0)
...And at least a fig leaf of bipartisanship?

My gut says they have the votes right now without Stupak. They're not all announced yet in case leadership can let some of them go, but I think leadership has the 216.

I wonder if this more about getting Cao, which I'm sure the WH would see as a big "get." Additionally, getting the Stupak group in would perhaps release some of their endangereds to vote no. I think they are nosing around to see if there's something they can give Stupak to hang his hat on -- like reaffirmation of Hyde, as has been floated -- that isn't something that will blow things up from the left.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans


Well, so much for that (0.00 / 0)
My gut says they have the votes right now without Stupak. They're not all announced yet in case leadership can let some of them go, but I think leadership has the 216.

Just didn't think that people like Boyd or Ellsworth (positioning for a Senate run) would get off the fence and declare without knowing it's a done deal.

Not optimistic now. The House vote in November was an easier swallow because everyone knew that was not going to be the final bill. Now it's for keeps...

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans


[ Parent ]
Stupak Wins? (0.00 / 0)
Looks like Stupak won:

Stupak Abortion Language to Be Substituted for Senate Language in Deal to Secure Health Care Votes

http://firedoglake.com/2010/03...


I suspect their coing to have a concurrent resolution so Stupak will vote for it (0.00 / 0)
knowing that the concurrent resolution won't succeed in the Senate. This is all about freeing up votes so Pelosi can give more blue dogs a pass. She wouldn't have a vote scheduled for this weekend if she hadn't locked up the votes.

[ Parent ]
Can't question the pro-choice folks (0.00 / 0)
because they have demonstrated that principled opposition to the CW notion that the only viable choice for Dems is to support this bill. Nothing happening here, Move On (TM).

Oh but that such flexibility were afforded others.

If the bill fails because of the principled opposition of the pro-choice caucus, how many progressives will attack those Dems as vigorously as they attacked Kucinich?

Some dissenters are more equal?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
A shitty end to a very good day... (0.00 / 0)
Passage is now seriously threatened (assuming that they actually need some Stupak votes), 'cos this is just a bridge too far for the pro-choice people to bear...

If the exchanges weren't expected to become the primary source of insurance for most people in 15-20 years or so, then it wouldn't be a big deal.  You'd just be expanding healthcare for those who have none now.  The restrictions would be much less onerous who have no way to afford any reproductive care now, anyways. But, the exchanges are expected to replace a lot of people's insurance in the future, and that's why this is a bridge too far for the female caucus... I can't blame them.

I don't know how this gets resolved.  The anti-abortion people are not reasonable in any way, shape or form.  they are quite delusional.

Still, the hope is that Stupak is once again exaggerating his position, and that any deal may be less problematic than expected.... we hope....

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


Someone will have to cave (4.00 / 2)
I think its going to have to DeGette and co. Because Stupak doesn't care.

This is the fundamental problem progressives have - they are negotiation from a position of weakness. They care if HCR fails, while the Blue Dogs don't.

DeGette and co. are going to have to ask themselves what is more important - the Democratic Party and Obama's Presidency or being pro-choice? Because we already know the answer from the pro-life side, particularly those from fairly conservative districts who don't have much to gain identifying with Obama and Democratic Party mainstream.

Thats the situation.  


[ Parent ]
Well then, kill the bill. (0.00 / 0)
Problem solved.

Stupak's crap goes buh-bye.

Everyone realizes that there is some shit that progressives won't eat.

Lesson learned. Start over with the next democratic president.


[ Parent ]
And also (0.00 / 0)
I don't think this is as bad as people are making it out. I don't think the votes exist without Stupak. So its not like he is throwing a wrench in the works where their wasn't want.

[ Parent ]
Well, he is throwing a wrench into the works... (0.00 / 0)
He's the one that organized this group and has been feeding them lies.  If Stupak went into a coma in March, I doubt this issue would have become so serious.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
You might be right here (0.00 / 0)
I hadn't been paying close attention until the last few days.

[ Parent ]
They are fellow Dems (0.00 / 0)
Do you support primary challenges to those voting "no" on the basis of pro-choice arguments? Obviously they have put their personal agenda ahead of the party benefits of passing this bill, no? [!]


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Quite frankly... (4.00 / 2)
...and this is emotion speaking at the moment, this is almost a bridge too far.  I am not pro-abortion by any means (no one is), but to have women keep getting kicked in the face for the healthcare reform is getting to be too much.  I know what an important personal issue it is for women, and for shitheads like Stupak to just be abusive and condescending about it along with all his lies and his secret agenda is bullshit...

We will have to see what happens in the end, but if it ends up a being a de facto reversal of Roe vs. Wade, I could not put any blame on the members of the women's caucus for voting no.  Not at all. No woman should be put in a position to vote for something like that.

So, there you go... I'm a bill killer now... sortof... I'd still support the bill and hope it would pass, but I certainly could not blame and congresswoman for voting against it, considering the circumstances.

The whole thing has me very upset... with Stupak's arrogance and lies.  The women's caucus has compromised SO MUCH on this issue, and the Stupak group hasn't compromised at all, and yet they keep demanding more concessions based on lies and secret agendas...  They are taking an awful large pound of flesh from people purely out of spite!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
Well, it might not be so bad.. (4.00 / 1)
Apparently, Marcy Kaptur is negotiating a deal with Reid, Pelosi and the Stupak 8 (or whatever the number is).  She's a hell of a lot more reasonable and not crazy like Stupak is, so that's a good sign.... still sucks that it even has to come to this.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


Don't know about that (0.00 / 0)
According to The Hill, Kaptur is the author of the enrollment resolution, which is virtually identical to the Stupak language in the House bill, so that appears to put her side-by-side with Stupak:

Leadership aides, including those in the Speaker's office, would not comment, but a senior Democratic aide directly involved in the abortion debate said Pelosi appeared to have agreed to give Stupak a vote on an "enrollment resolution" offered by Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), a key Stupak ally.

Kaptur's resolution contains the same abortion language that Stupak successfully attached at the 11th hour to the House healthcare bill in November.

But then the Washington Post reports it this way:

Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, a 14-term lawmaker from the Toledo area, is trying to forge a compromise that would bring most, if not all, of the anti-abortion group onboard to support the final bill.

Although she would prefer another vote on Mr. Stupak's amendment, Ms. Kaptur touted the Sebelius letter and private talks with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., a co-author of the Senate's abortion language, as signs that a settlement could be reached. "Some of the information we're getting is very reassuring," she said.

Is she a Stupak hard-liner or is she trying to bridge the gap on her own?  Hard to read The Hill report as the latter...

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans


[ Parent ]
Who knows what's accurate at this point... (0.00 / 0)
The major media stories are glossing this over, suggesting it's a minor problem, and Pelosi is still publicly saying there is no deal.

It could be she floated the deal to the pro-choice caucus to see their reaction, but no official decision had been made... She may also be working Kaptur as well and finding the best route forward...

Things seem to be in flux...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
Maybe (0.00 / 0)
DDay's latest whip count has the no's including "five leaners, four of them part of the Stupak bloc" at 215, meaning Pelosi has to run the table of undecideds. "There are only 8 undecideds left, and 208 Yes votes with leaners. So Pelosi would have to get all 8, including Stupak bloc member Kathy Dahlkemper, and hold Marcy Kaptur (who probably shouldn't be a lean Yes)."

It's pretty clear some deal is going to have to be struck with someone in the Stupak crowd.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans


[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox