Pelosi caves to Stupak

posted at 8:25 am on November 7, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

How desperate has Nancy Pelosi become for enough votes to pass her ObamaCare proposal this weekend? She has reversed course and given Bart Stupak (D-MI) a floor vote on his amendment to ban federal abortion funding in the bill. Pelosi had attempted to use another amendment to undermine Stupak’s support and get enough votes to keep from a humiliating loss:

House Democratic leaders will allow an up-or-down vote on an amendment blocking any money in its healthcare overhaul from funding abortions, risking the votes of members who support abortion rights.

Anti-abortion Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) had told a bleary-eyed Rules committee panel that a deal struck earlier in the day to move forward on the issue was off.

“There was some compromise language from different proposals that we thought would be satisfactory, our understanding was that we had an agreement. Two hours later it was not an agreement,” Stupak said as the clock neared 1 a.m. Saturday.

That sounds like bad news, in one sense.  Stupak’s coalition of pro-life Democrats could have kept Pelosi’s bill from passing.  Indeed, Stupak had threatened to work with Republicans on a motion to recommit, which would have killed the bill.  If Stupak gets his vote, he may wind up supporting the bill even if he loses and the bill remains with its current language.  Even if Stupak remains firm, members of his coalition may split after an up-or-down vote.

However, Stupak will almost certainly get the entire Republican caucus to support him, and perhaps more Democrats than the 40 Stupak already has.  If the amendment passes, Pelosi may have an entirely different problem:

Liberals on the committee threatened to vote against the final healthcare bill if it included Stupak’s language, warning that it would be a return to the days of back-alley abortions.

“I forsee a return to the dark ages,” said Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.). “I’m 73, I’ve seen these dark things, they use these coat hangers and die.”

That’s a remarkable statement — since we don’t use federal funds now to pay for abortions.  Stupak’s amendment just maintains the status quo; it doesn’t actually change anything.  The coat-hanger argument has always been a red herring anyway, but in this instance it’s especially dishonest … unless Hastings et al see this bill as a complete government takeover of the health-care system, which it will definitely produce sooner or later.

If Pelosi loses the progressives over the ban on abortion funding, what would she have left?  The Blue Dogs won’t rescue this bill, not after this week’s elections and the nosedive in polling for ObamaCare, and especially not after the latest unemployment numbers.

Pass the popcorn.  This should be interesting, and still scary enough to keep pulse rates high.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Tsk Tsk
All that work for nothing.

nyx on November 7, 2009 at 8:28 AM

It would sure be nice for a change to have a relaxing weekend and not be concerned about how this gov. is continually trying to figure out ways to screw us!

ohiobabe on November 7, 2009 at 8:29 AM

One must seriously ask if this woman has mental issues.

diogenes on November 7, 2009 at 8:32 AM

If you’re close to D.C., please make another “house call” at 1:00pm today at the Capital. Find the whites of their eyes…

parteagirl on November 7, 2009 at 8:33 AM

It would sure be nice for a change to have a relaxing weekend and not be concerned about how this gov. is continually trying to figure out ways to screw us!

Isn’t that the truth! They try to wear you down

phillypolitics on November 7, 2009 at 8:34 AM

A most interesting development.

PhoenixUniversal on November 7, 2009 at 8:34 AM

And then, and then, and then — the people get to weigh in.

It’s looking like “vote any and every Democrat out of office” election coming up.

tarpon on November 7, 2009 at 8:34 AM

TOP STORY ON DRUDGE.

“BUY $15,000 POLICY OR GO TO JAIL”

marklmail on November 7, 2009 at 8:35 AM

Ed, can you please explain how this motion to recommit would work? Is it still a possibility?

parteagirl on November 7, 2009 at 8:35 AM

I called health care dead about 2 months ago, but this constant back door dealing and bill after bill after bill is driving me bonkers.

Now is not the time to rest though, keep the pressure on. That is when they will strike again in the dark of night, on a weekend, during the holidays….. Sound like current times?

bbordwell on November 7, 2009 at 8:35 AM

Pelosi – skewered by a coat-hanger.

OldEnglish on November 7, 2009 at 8:36 AM

It’s all about broken promises and covering one’s arse.

Allow the abortion vote, it will fail, but it will give the pro life dems cover by voting no, only to be promised by Pelosi and the Chicago machine that when the bill goes to conference, they will exclude abortions from fed funds.

Then, behind closed doors with only the selected members in the conference, they will keep the abortion funding in the final bill, and have it pass on the floor.

The pro lifers will be allowed to say they were duped, they trusted their leadership…yada yada….

Whatever it takes to pass this thing, the machine will do it.

tatersalad on November 7, 2009 at 8:37 AM

hmm…interesting.

becki51758 on November 7, 2009 at 8:38 AM

Well, healthcare isn’t a scary issue to me. Now, a second stimulus bill? That would get my blood pressure up.

This bill is so convoluted that there is no way that it can be implemented happily. People will absolutely go bananas.

Pelosi had 40 Dems who were representing pro-life to the point that they said that was a dealbreaker. I wondered, personally, if they weren’t just hiding behind that, thinking that the liberal Dems would never go along with it. This is also a hot button issue for Dems representing pro-choice areas. They are also up for reelection. If they vote FOR this, it will upset their constituents, too.

They now have the excuse of saying, “We had to in order to save the bill.” That will work, too. So the pro-life side wins this one.

Now, will those same 40 pro-life actually follow through and vote for the bill? I frankly think the bill itself and the cost will tick their voters off far more than the abortion issue.

We’ll see.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 8:38 AM

That’s a remarkable statement — since we don’t use federal funds now to pay for abortions.

How do you know this for sure since we can’t trace most of the federal funds anyway? So federal funds don’t trickle down to groups such as Planned Parenthood? Just asking.

mimi1220 on November 7, 2009 at 8:39 AM

Pelosi tells the liberals to suck it up for now. When the bill comes bck from the Senate and there’s a conference committee, abortion coverage (with the fake accounting to make it look “pro-life”) will go back in. Then she’ll lean hard on pro-life Dems to vote for this “historic bill.”

“Do you want to be the one who stopped every American from having health care?”

Wethal on November 7, 2009 at 8:39 AM

Once the Stupak amendment passes, and it will, we should flood the liberals’ offices with coat hangars.

TXUS on November 7, 2009 at 8:40 AM

Stupak is my congressman and is the biggest liar in the world or a least in the State of Michigan. He is only paying lip service to his highly Catholic constituents in the U.P. and Northern Lower Michigan. He will vote for Obamacare, he just wants to cover his ass.

flytier on November 7, 2009 at 8:40 AM

Two hours later it was not an agreement

This is the antithesis of ‘negotiation’. When will we/you/they figure that out?

Skandia Recluse on November 7, 2009 at 8:42 AM

Stupak’s an idiot if he thinks that Pelosi and the Libs will keep their promise on anything. They’re spit-shining the bus he will be thrown under.

Kill the Bill!

EMD on November 7, 2009 at 8:43 AM

Liberals on the committee threatened to vote against the final healthcare bill if it included Stupak’s language, warning that it would be a return to the days of back-alley abortions.
“I forsee a return to the dark ages,” said Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.). “I’m 73, I’ve seen these dark things, they use these coat hangers and die.”

These desparate liberals will say anything! This has nothing to do w/rescinding abortions. It has to do w/public paying for them and they can’t do it anyway under Hyde Amendment…….oh wait they don’t know what the Hyde Amendment is!!!!!!

xler8bmw on November 7, 2009 at 8:44 AM

I don’t think liberals really care if this passes or not. They will just supply the money under the table and rake in “good” press for principled stands and ability to compromise. I actually think this guarantees passage of this monstrosity.

Cindy Munford on November 7, 2009 at 8:45 AM

eh, a blink is a blink. She still has a pack of pens. Dont trust her.

johnnyU on November 7, 2009 at 8:46 AM

The coat-hanger argument has always been a red herring anyway, but in this instance it’s especially dishonest … unless Hastings et al see this bill as a complete government takeover of the health-care system, which it will definitely produce sooner or later.

I think it’s an admission that this is a complete government takeover of healthcare, at least for the relatively poor, who libs want to make sure have every opportunity for abortions.

zmdavid on November 7, 2009 at 8:46 AM

Pelosi = BotchedAborsh

Key West Reader on November 7, 2009 at 8:47 AM

The only way to fight this bill is on cost. It’s the one thing almost everyone can agree is too much. Except the people who don’t pay taxes, they think it’s just ducky.

Cindy Munford on November 7, 2009 at 8:47 AM

Nancy? What are the odds that this may FAIL?

perroviejo on November 7, 2009 at 8:47 AM

Pelosi tells the liberals to suck it up for now. When the bill comes bck from the Senate and there’s a conference committee, abortion coverage (with the fake accounting to make it look “pro-life”) will go back in. Then she’ll lean hard on pro-life Dems to vote for this “historic bill.”
“Do you want to be the one who stopped every American from having health care?”

Wethal on November 7, 2009 at 8:39 AM

More likely, they’ll have to leave it in since the Senate will also have a similar provision. But then, expect to see it ripped out in some amendment to, say, a defense spending bill in the spring. They’re not going to jeapordize passage of Obamacare for something they can ram through later.

TXUS on November 7, 2009 at 8:48 AM

What amazes me is the so called principles that Congressmen claim. Stupak will not support the bill unless he gets a floor vote, but if he loses the vote he will then support the bill with language that allows federally funded abortion. What principle!

d1carter on November 7, 2009 at 8:48 AM

Deal making? I cringe to think of what Rahm Emanuel and Nazi Pelosi are offering to buy the votes they need.

petefrt on November 7, 2009 at 8:49 AM

It reminds me of the trick I used the play as a kid when I was holding something I wanted to pass off…

‘hey, could you hold this for a sec while I tie my shoe?’…..

Sucker.

tatersalad on November 7, 2009 at 8:49 AM

If I were a stinking liberal, I would be ticked if they didn’t include abortion funding. Libs, does Nasty really have your back?

bloggless on November 7, 2009 at 8:50 AM

Pelosi caves to Stupak

Help me out here,was that title prompted by where she spends her daylight hours? Hanging around so to speak?

oldernwiser on November 7, 2009 at 8:51 AM

“If Pelosi loses the progressives…”

Progressives. Bullshit.

perroviejo on November 7, 2009 at 8:51 AM

What amazes me is the so called principles that Congressmen claim. Stupak will not support the bill unless he gets a floor vote, but if he loses the vote he will then support the bill with language that allows federally funded abortion. What principle!

d1carter on November 7, 2009 at 8:48 AM

I believe they will get another chance to vote against it.

bloggless on November 7, 2009 at 8:51 AM

Alleged Blue Dogs are in a dilemma: voters vs. a punitive Pelosi. Blue Dogs, here’s a way out: switch party affiliation and vote against the bill. You will only have to undergo torment for 11 months but will get your perks back in the Republican majority next year. Plus if enough of you do it, you won’t have to wait till next year. Problem solved.

casel21 on November 7, 2009 at 8:51 AM

I say we ban coat hangers. For life.

bloggless on November 7, 2009 at 8:52 AM

Alleged Blue Dogs are in a dilemma: voters

I agree. I also think their constituents are probably split. It must be hard to walk the ledge.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 8:54 AM

Do not think for a moment she will lose the Libbie vote even if she removes abortion funding.
They want the crown, even if it missing a jewel.

roscopico on November 7, 2009 at 8:54 AM

Do not think for a moment she will lose the Libbie vote even if she removes abortion funding.
They want the crown, even if it missing a jewel.

roscopico on November 7, 2009 at 8:54 AM

Yes, the wrangling has gone on long enough that it’s clear that the bill will have compromises.

However, I still wonder if the 40 Dems who chose this as their line in the sand now wish they hadn’t. They rather promised to vote for it if the amendment was put in.

Pelosi sucker punched them.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 8:58 AM

The only way to fight this bill is on cost. It’s the one thing almost everyone can agree is too much. Except the people who don’t pay taxes, they think it’s just ducky.

Cindy Munford on November 7, 2009 at 8:47 AM

I agree, but another strong argument is the failure of government-run anything, as exemplified most recently by the flu shot debacle.

The latter is gaining a lot of traction, particularly in the Senate, which may well end up killing the whole bill anyway.

But I don’t see passage to be a sure thing in the House either. If it does pass there, it will pass by only a couple of votes, which will make the Senate even more skittish.

TXUS on November 7, 2009 at 8:58 AM

casel21 on November 7, 2009 at 8:51 AM

I have wondered why there hasn’t been a single Dem suffering under the Madness of Queen Nancy who hasn’t said, “Screw this!” and either switched parties or decided not to run for re-election because politics just wasn’t worth this grief.

Wethal on November 7, 2009 at 8:58 AM

“I forsee a return to the dark ages,” said Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.). “I’m 73, I’ve seen these dark things, they use these coat hangers and die.”

A. Hastings, you’re a liar and a murderer.

http://www.tnrtl.org/human_life_issues/human_life_issues_abortion_lies_and_myths.htm

Scroll down to:

“The Myth of Mass Back-Alley Abortion Deaths”

davidk on November 7, 2009 at 8:59 AM

If it’s a struggle to get the votes in the House, then it will be a nightmare in the Senate. The two bills are world’s apart right now.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 9:00 AM

By the way, Obama is coming to the Hill today to help sway uncertain or opposed Dem votes.

“Do you want to be the one who stopped every American from having health care?”

Wethal on November 7, 2009 at 9:00 AM

That’s a remarkable statement — since we don’t use federal funds now to pay for abortions.

How do you know this for sure since we can’t trace most of the federal funds anyway? So federal funds don’t trickle down to groups such as Planned Parenthood? Just asking.

mimi1220 on November 7, 2009 at 8:39 AM

Medicaid funds are used. I have seen it myself. It was many years ago in Sacramento at an outpatient surgery center where women came in for abortions paid for by Medi-Cal

keebs on November 7, 2009 at 9:01 AM

1st: Ed, when I read HR 3200 back in the summer, I could not find where abortion funding was prohibited. no—–the Hyde amendment only applies to funds running thru HHS.

the language is ambigious (ha ha,written by *ssholes in Congress). If this issue is impt to you, you must really, really get on your Congressman about it.

2d: it is easier to remain vigilant than try to parse the amendments. Keep after ‘em.

kelley in virginia on November 7, 2009 at 9:02 AM

Everyone has heard the Mr. Owens, D-NY23 who campaigned against the government option has now changed his mind and will vote for the Bill. I can’t get too worked up over what any of these people say.

Cindy Munford on November 7, 2009 at 9:02 AM

By the way, Obama is coming to the Hill today to help sway uncertain or opposed Dem votes.

I don’t think he scares anyone anymore.

parteagirl on November 7, 2009 at 9:02 AM

That’s a remarkable statement — since we don’t use federal funds now to pay for abortions.

We don’t?

Planned Parenthood receives around $270 million federal dollars annually – you actually believe that money isn’t finding it’s way into actual abortions?

Stem Cell research. What’s that if it’s not abortion?

We send billions overseas in foriegn aid – and some of it goes to fund abortions in third world countries.

Abortions? Yeah … we pay for ‘em.

HondaV65 on November 7, 2009 at 9:03 AM

TXUS on November 7, 2009 at 8:58 AM

Too true, they are amazing managers.

Cindy Munford on November 7, 2009 at 9:03 AM

Everyone has heard the Mr. Owens, D-NY23 who campaigned against the government option has now changed his mind and will vote for the Bill. I can’t get too worked up over what any of these people say.

Cindy Munford on November 7, 2009 at 9:02 AM

Gee, what a surprise. A politician who lies to get elected. *haha

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 9:03 AM

“Do you want to be the one who stopped every American from having health care?”

Wethal on November 7, 2009 at 9:00 AM

Two month ago, playing the guilt card may have worked but haven’t the tides turned and weakened that manipulation? At least 50% of their constituents would like them to answer yes to that question even if it does get phrased that way.

sherry on November 7, 2009 at 9:04 AM

Do not think for a moment she will lose the Libbie vote even if she removes abortion funding.
They want the crown, even if it missing a jewel.

roscopico on November 7, 2009 at 8:54 AM

Exactly. Nancy’s got plenty of money to bribe the bluedogs. There will be a bill. It will pass. It will be a disaster, and it will be the issue of the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Rational Thought on November 7, 2009 at 9:04 AM

I say we ban coat hangers. For life.

bloggless on November 7, 2009 at 8:52 AM

Pun intended?

bbordwell on November 7, 2009 at 9:04 AM

Cindy Munford on November 7, 2009 at 9:02 AM

The price Owens had to pay for that seat was to support ObamaCare and Cap and Trade. Raum Emmanuel levied that bill.

And that’s not a joke.

HondaV65 on November 7, 2009 at 9:05 AM

The price Owens had to pay for that seat was to support ObamaCare and Cap and Trade. Raum Emmanuel levied that bill.

And that’s not a joke.

HondaV65 on November 7, 2009 at 9:05 AM

I’m sure you’re right. Obama attended a rally, and then Biden showed up to close the deal. That’s big guns.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 9:06 AM

There’s still another contengency…the Latino caucus…that is demanding an amendment.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 9:07 AM

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 9:03 AM

It is shocking isn’t it. I would have a lot more respect for someone who disagrees with me then someone who tells me what I want to hear. That has to be really tiresome when they are dealing with hundreds of thousands of constituents. Not that they mind, they manage to just solider on and lie with abandon.

Cindy Munford on November 7, 2009 at 9:07 AM

HondaV65 on November 7, 2009 at 9:05 AM

Didn’t the House already vote on Cap and Trade?

Cindy Munford on November 7, 2009 at 9:08 AM

Two month ago, playing the guilt card may have worked but haven’t the tides turned and weakened that manipulation? At least 50% of their constituents would like them to answer yes to that question even if it does get phrased that way.

sherry on November 7, 2009 at 9:04 AM

As long as they’re isolated (so to speak) from their constitutents in DC, which is what Nancy wants (don’t let them go home for the weekend after the 11/3 election results and hear form the voters in person), she thinks she and Obama still have enough leverage.

I do hope she and Obama are wrong. “I won” won’t resonate quite as much with the Dems who are worrying if they will be able to say the same next fall.

But she is still the Speaker (for now) and can make life hell for someone who doesn’t toe the line.

Wethal on November 7, 2009 at 9:09 AM

It is shocking isn’t it. I would have a lot more respect for someone who disagrees with me then someone who tells me what I want to hear. That has to be really tiresome when they are dealing with hundreds of thousands of constituents. Not that they mind, they manage to just solider on and lie with abandon.

Cindy Munford on November 7, 2009 at 9:07 AM

Yes, but there are big lies and then little lies. This one was a whopper.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 9:09 AM

Pun intended?

bbordwell on November 7, 2009 at 9:04 AM

Absolutely.

bloggless on November 7, 2009 at 9:10 AM

Congress and the Administration are trying to take control of our very lives and usurp the Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.

kingsjester on November 7, 2009 at 9:10 AM

If Pelosi loses the progressives over the ban on abortion funding, what would she have left?

This whole thing is a charade. All Pelosi and Democratic leaders have to do is promise to put the language in at a later date or in seperate legislation. Pelosi’s bill will pass, and with that we will have our list of representatives headed for the endangered species list.

Rovin on November 7, 2009 at 9:10 AM

anninca: are you saying that the Latinos are against Fed funding of abortions?

the black people I know here in so. Virginia are very anti-abortion. yet they vote for Dems 99%. When I mention the disconnect, they say that obama would never pay for an abortion & that Obama is against abortion.

so anninca: are the Latinos as easy to manipulate?

kelley in virginia on November 7, 2009 at 9:10 AM

I’m torn between wanting this bill to die today, and wanting the house to actually vote for it and have their yeah or nay recorded. It will make the “house cleaning” so much easier next year when they can’t deny their recorded vote. A lengthy debate is sinking Obama’s poll numbers as well. As long as it dies in the senate, I’m good with it passing the house. It’s still risky, but ultimately more damaging to the Dems.

parteagirl on November 7, 2009 at 9:11 AM

I agree. I also think their constituents are probably split. It must be hard to walk the ledge.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 8:54 AM

How does it feel when you have no convictions/morals? You are such a dishwater “analyst” anninca. You really should not be commenting at all until you figure out what your core beliefs are.

zeebeach on November 7, 2009 at 9:11 AM

…since we don’t use federal funds now to pay for abortions.

Except that we do through federal support of Planned Parenthood and other firms both here and abroad.

stvnscott on November 7, 2009 at 9:12 AM

This whole “legislative” process is a charade. When legislators can take an entirely unrelated bill that has already been passed into law, gut it and replace its language with “something completely different” we’re pretty much screwed.

Those cankers, those fetid pustules known as politicians in general, and Democrats in particular, have become so inured to their own stench that they will pass this reeking bolus on us and expect us to believe it’s prosciutto, oblivious to, or perhaps in cynical spite of, the consequent opprobrium.

I would like to think we can flush and thoroughly disinfect at the next election, but, sadly, I’m afraid that until we get a cohort of true libertarians who can drain the moat of Washington, the best we can hope for is a little aeration to treat the worst of the Washington effluent.

mr.blacksheep on November 7, 2009 at 9:13 AM

anninca: are you saying that the Latinos are against Fed funding of abortions?

No, it has to do with access to the public option and immigration issues.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 9:13 AM

How does it feel when you have no convictions/morals?

I have convictions on a lot of issues. I just don’t always choose to discuss them.

My point was that Blue Dawgs put together coalition voters, and then they have to deal with wedge issues.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 9:15 AM

There’s still another contengency…the Latino caucus…that is demanding an amendment.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 9:07 AM

True, and these 20 or so members are in concrete about ensuring that proof of citizenship not being required to buy the so-called insurance.

However, the vast majority of the House cannot agree to remove that provision. And the Latinos will have to vote against final passage if that provision’s in there.

Pelosi knows that, so they’ll be among the first she allows to vote Nay.

TXUS on November 7, 2009 at 9:15 AM

Didn’t the House already vote on Cap and Trade?

Cindy Munford on November 7, 2009 at 9:08 AM

Sorry – you are correct!

But Raum did demand support for ObamaCare from Owens. Everyone talks about Sarah Palin’s two facebook postings on that race in NY-23 and accuse her of meddling. But what most don’t realize is that at the eleventh hour – Raum made a deal with Scozzafava to endorse Owens and then told Owens … “I’ve just given you a job and the price is you WILL support ObamaCare”.

Owens immediately changed his position.

HondaV65 on November 7, 2009 at 9:15 AM

I’m good with it passing the house. It’s still risky, but ultimately more damaging to the Dems….

parteagirl on November 7, 2009 at 9:11 AM

No thanks. I agree with taking the vote for record, but passing is not an option.

And “house cleaning”… This is one “Mop” I won’t mind picking up.

bbordwell on November 7, 2009 at 9:16 AM

The House has begun their one-minute speaches, so far every democrat has called Pelosi’s plan AFFORDABLE! Got that, pay $15k or go to jail and be fined $250k. Who can’t afford that?

Rovin on November 7, 2009 at 9:16 AM

have convictions on a lot of issues. I just don’t always choose to discuss them.

My point was that Blue Dawgs put together coalition voters, and then they have to deal with wedge issues.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 9:15 AM

Which was my point. If you choose not to discuss you “convictions”, your comments are useless, and, frankly annoying IMO.

zeebeach on November 7, 2009 at 9:19 AM

Watching C-Span and Dan Lungren gets on and talks about the ‘Public Option’ requires you to buy government healthcare if you do not have it or pay a fine of up to $250,000.00 or 5 years in jail. He finishes by saying this is 1st time in history or freedom is thwarted and government CHANGES its relationship with its people. Then a Democrat gets up and says how historical it all is that we are going to finally provide our people affordable healthcare and finished up with a medical insurance sob story about a ‘friend’. It’s a classic juxtaposition of Liberal vs Conservative.

Call your Congressmen NOW!

Sultry Beauty on November 7, 2009 at 9:20 AM

However, the vast majority of the House cannot agree to remove that provision. And the Latinos will have to vote against final passage if that provision’s in there.

OK, so they already basically lost. Thanks for the update.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 9:20 AM

If I recall, the last time Obama made a special trip to close the deal before the vote was held didn’t work out so well…

tatersalad on November 7, 2009 at 9:21 AM

Which was my point. If you choose not to discuss you “convictions”, your comments are useless, and, frankly annoying IMO.

zeebeach on November 7, 2009 at 9:19 AM

Then just skip my posts. I won’t be offended.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 9:21 AM

HondaV65 on November 7, 2009 at 9:15 AM

Did you read that Eugene Robinson article in the headlines yesterday? He made some snarky remark about Gov. Palin’s book being mandatory reading. I don’t know what to think of these people any more. It scares me that there isn’t a huge majority of citizens that don’t realize these folks are nuts.

Cindy Munford on November 7, 2009 at 9:23 AM

No thanks. I agree with taking the vote for record, but passing is not an option.

Why would they let their votes be recorded if the bill itself was not actually on the line? This “I’m still looking it over” equivalent to voting “present” seems to be the only thing some of them are comfortable committing to- Chet Edwards included.

parteagirl on November 7, 2009 at 9:23 AM

Owens immediately changed his position.

HondaV65 on November 7, 2009 at 9:15 AM

And no doubt said there would be a job somewhere in the Obama administration if Owens got thrown out next fall. Which may be the bribe Nancy will use with others, too, along with bribes of campaign cash and her usual threats.

Wethal on November 7, 2009 at 9:25 AM

The type of mind that conceived a sick deviant enterprise like Planned Parenthood, and the sick deviant minds that work at such places, would of been more than comfortable working the NAZI death camps.

Jeff from WI on November 7, 2009 at 9:25 AM

Sultry Beauty on November 7, 2009 at 9:20 AM

Historical? Yep, that’s what immediately jumps into my head when I think about the monster of a Bill. I have been thinking that this Bill would pass the House but if there is enough time to get this piece of news out there, I think they may have “jumped the shark”.

Cindy Munford on November 7, 2009 at 9:26 AM

Then just skip my posts. I won’t be offended.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 9:21 AM

I’m sure you won’t. Being offended is an actual “position” isn’t it?

zeebeach on November 7, 2009 at 9:26 AM

But she is still the Speaker (for now) and can make life hell for someone who doesn’t toe the line.

Wethal on November 7, 2009 at 9:09 AM

Unfortunately, true. My only hope is that their diminshing trust in their leadership coupled with the angry mobs at home will force them to stiffen their spines.

sherry on November 7, 2009 at 9:28 AM

Jeff from WI on November 7, 2009 at 9:25 AM

Amen, brother.
Lord have mercy!

OmahaConservative on November 7, 2009 at 9:28 AM

Sarah has spoken again.

Speaker Pelosi: Your Blue Dogs are HowlingShare
Today at 8:47am
Like many Americans, I’m very concerned about the efforts underway to rush through the 2,000 page Pelosi health care bill this weekend. Why the rush? That’s a lot of pages to read. Why not give everyone the chance to read it and debate it?

How much will this bill cost us? It’s unclear because the figures coming out of Washington keep changing – and always in the direction of costing more, not less. The latest numbers show it will cost more than a trillion dollars over the decade, but when has a government program ever come in on or under budget?

How will we pay for it? Taxes, of course – and not just on the “rich” (you know, the people who spur the economy by buying goods and running companies that employ people), but also on just about everyone, especially small businesses – the job-creating engine of our economy. One of the points of health care reform was to help small businesses with the cost, but this bill hurts them – and right at a time when so many Americans are out of work and need the jobs that small businesses produce.

What’s in this bill? The “death panel” provision is in it. Medicare cuts are in it. Coverage of illegal immigrants is in it. And federal funding for abortion is in it. I commend the many Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats who are taking a principled stance to fight this.

I had a message for Speaker Pelosi in a speech I gave last night for the Wisconsin Right to Life – “please, please don’t break the ‘transparency promise’ by prohibiting at least a vote of your colleagues on funding abortion-on-demand.”

Speaker Pelosi has already broken many promises thus far in this “reform” exercise. She promised that this would be a bi-partisan effort, but the bill she’s pushing isn’t bi-partisan. She promised that the final version of the bill would be posted online 72 hours before it comes to a vote so that the American people could clearly see what’s in it and how we will pay for it. But she broke that promise too when she decided to rush the bill to a vote this weekend.

The speaker must be held accountable for her broken promises. Now is the time for Americans who believe in the free market and who believe that we need policies that promote job growth instead of job loss to say once and for all, “Enough!” Stand up and make your voices heard before it’s too late. Call and email your representatives and tell them to vote “no” on Pelosi’s train wreck of a health care bill, or else we will vote “no” to sending them back to Washington when we go to the polls in less than 12 months.

- Sarah Palin

PS: For an idea of the bureaucratic maze that the Pelosi bill would create, take a look at this new chart put out by the Joint Economic Committee.

Here is the link.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=168828228434

Clyde5445 on November 7, 2009 at 9:29 AM

The only way to fight this bill is on cost….

Cindy Munford on November 7, 2009 at 8:47 AM

As far as a cost argument goes, here is the view of the statist as expressed by an economist at the New Yorker:

…expanding health-care coverage now and worrying later about its long-term consequences is an eminently defensible strategy. Putting on my amateur historian’s cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted. But as an economics reporter and commentator, I feel obliged to put on my green eyeshade and count the dollars. (my emphasis)

Unbelievable. He concludes they are lying about the costs but something so important needs to be lied about. The fight against this bill is only about how well they can lie.

casel21 on November 7, 2009 at 9:29 AM

Is it really possible that all of these Democrats care more about providing health care than protecting their own hides?

We know how politicians think and what they live for. It’s all about getting re-elected. That is goal numero uno.

Are they completely blind to what happened in Tuesday’s elections, or do they think the passing of this bill giving healthcare to all, is a ticket to re-election until they reach their graves?

Are they stupid or conceited? Either way, if this abortion of a bill is passed, many of them can kiss their political careers goodbye come 2010. Some, like Pelosi, can rest easy, since their constituents are braindead do-nothings who can’t get dressed in the morning without government intervention.

fogw on November 7, 2009 at 9:29 AM

The Democrats have the national stage today. By continually pushing this healthcare bill they have gotten what they didn’t want, the attention of the whole country. If it does nothing else today, the debate on the bill, has the Democrates in the headlights. I don’t think the country is going to be pleased by what they see!

donh525 on November 7, 2009 at 9:30 AM

Isn’t that the truth! They try to wear you down

phillypolitics on November 7, 2009 at 8:34 AM
//
We,as a nation,have really never had to be as diligent as we must be today.I ,for one,had grown complacent,earlier raising my kids and not really having to worry about this kind of gov. take over.Well,I’m awake now,and thanks to h/a,redstate and Malkin,we have others watching out too and alerting us 24 hrs. a day!!:)

ohiobabe on November 7, 2009 at 9:32 AM

casel21 on November 7, 2009 at 9:29 AM

Right, because the other things that they lied about to get passed into law have worked out so well. It was pretty sporting of him to let us know that they are flat out lying, even it is one the biggest rationalizations I believe I have ever read. It’s like something a five year old would come up with.

Cindy Munford on November 7, 2009 at 9:37 AM

Everyone has heard the Mr. Owens, D-NY23 who campaigned against the government option has now changed his mind and will vote for the Bill. I can’t get too worked up over what any of these people say.

Cindy Munford on November 7, 2009 at 9:02 AM
//
Yes,saw that and had to smile,all those voters that thought he was a fiscal conservateive.Ha!Oh,and crist is hilarious also,denying what everyone can see on youtube.What a comedy of errors!

ohiobabe on November 7, 2009 at 9:37 AM

Comment pages: 1 2