House Dem: Conference committee will strip Stupak amendment

posted at 1:36 pm on November 9, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

With the opposition to ObamaCare wondering whether Republicans should have voted “present” on the Stupak amendment rather than let it pass, The Hill reports that Democrats expect the amendment to get stripped in committee anyway.  Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) says that a conference committee will remove the addendum that has so many Democrats unhappy with the House version of health-care reform — and that provided enough screen for Blue Dogs to jump on the bandwagon at the last minute:

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the Democrats’ chief deputy whip in the House, said that she and other pro-choice lawmakers would work to strip the amendment included in the House health bill that bars federal funding from going to subsidize abortions.

“I am confident that when it comes back from the conference committee that that language won’t be there,” Wasserman Schultz said during an appearance on MSNBC. “And I think we’re all going to be working very hard, particularly the pro-choice members, to make sure that’s the case.”

This comes as no big surprise, but it does highlight the question of whether Republicans should have supported the Stupak amendment in the first place. John McCormack sets up the question, and then answers it:

Although at least a handful of Republicans entertained the idea of voting present, Shadegg was the only one to do so. The GOP leadership released a statement that seemed to respond to those who wanted to bring down the amendment. “To be clear, the Stupak-Pitts Amendment’s passage is the right thing to do,” Representatives Boehner, Cantor, and Pence said in a statement. “We believe you just don’t play politics with life.”

There are many problems with the Shadegg/Americans for Prosperity gambit, but the most important one is that it simply wouldn’t have worked. The bill would have passed anyway. In fact, in the long-run, defeating Stupak would have hurt chances of defeating Obamacare.

Even Stupak didn’t claim he would vote against the Pelosi bill if he lost the vote on the amendment.  He threatened to bring a coalition of 40 Democrats to defeat the bill if he didn’t get a vote on the amendment.  He told his own constituents two weeks ago that he would likely vote for ObamaCare even with abortion subsidies, as long as he got a chance at an up-or-down vote.

Had the Republicans voted “present” and defeated the amendment, Stupak and his coalition would have provided enough votes to pass the bill — with the abortion subsidies.  The GOP managed to force the Democrats to abandon the abortion industry in its vote, which is why Wasserman-Schultz is now demanding that a conference committee strip the provision from the bill.  As Greg Sargent reports, she’s not alone, either:

In a move that will intensify the coming war over how to treat abortion in the health care bill, more than three dozen House Dems have signed a letter to Nancy Pelosi firmly pledging to vote against the bill if it contains an anti-abortion amendment.

A source sends over a working copy of the letter without the signatories, and a source says it currently bears the signatures of 41 House Dems. They’re all vowing to vote No on a bill if it contains the Stupak amendment — enough to sink the bill …

That’s unequivocal, with no wiggle room. The Washington Post reported this morning that Rep. Diana DeGette had collected 40 signatures vowing a No vote, without noting the language of their vow or how this would be communicated.

That sets up a big confrontation, and holds the Stupak coalition’s feet to the fire on an eventual conference report vote.  Stupak won’t get a chance to offer an amendment to add the language back into the bill; conference reports get straight up-or-down votes.  Either the pro-life Democrats have to vote for federal subsidies for abortions, which will mean an end to their legislative careers, or vote against the ObamaCare product and force Democrats to start over from scratch.

Republicans can make that argument only because they supported the Stupak amendment, even against what appeared to be their longer-term interests at that moment.  They acted on principle and can now argue that the Stupak coalition must respond in kind or be exposed as the worst kind of hypocrites in election challenges next year — challenges which that Stupak town-hall meeting shows will resonate.  Had they tried playing the legislative game with the Stupak amendment, this rift among Democrats shown by Sargent would never have appeared, and they would have lost the ability to highlight a backroom effort to rid the bill of an amendment that received more votes than the bill itself.

Voting to approve the Stupak amendment was a moment where strategy and principle converged.  It was not only a good tactic, it was the right thing to do.


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

I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

TheQuestion on November 9, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Only the Repubs who voted for the Stupak ammendment couldn’t see this coming. Everybody else saw this coming from 50 miles away. Typical and it’s why they get out-maneuvered every time. And I’m sure they’ll learn nothing.

AUINSC on November 9, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Who saw this coming. What a surprise.

Jerricho68 on November 9, 2009 at 1:39 PM

REALLY?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OMG!!!!!! WHAT A SHOCKER!!!!!!

…..(Yeah, over the top. Sue me. Better yet, throw me in jail because I don’t have health insurance.)

Hawkins1701 on November 9, 2009 at 1:40 PM

Ugh, I still want confirmation that; that is a girl.
Deep voice, big Adams apple, hint of a 5 o’clock shadow…you do the math.

milwife88 on November 9, 2009 at 1:40 PM

Call me Captain Renault

NoFanofLibs on November 9, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Rogue government

daesleeper on November 9, 2009 at 1:41 PM

i feel powerless….

moonbatkiller on November 9, 2009 at 1:41 PM

If I was a congressman, and the conference bill when against an important vote that had already been taken, there is no possible way I would vote for the result. Why insist on having a vote and then sitting by while the result of that vote is ignored?

pedestrian on November 9, 2009 at 1:41 PM

I hope this causes all of the Pro-Choice Dem Caucus to vote against a final bill, if it gets through the Senate (and I don’t think it will).

But I don’t think any Dem has principles.

Enoxo on November 9, 2009 at 1:41 PM

I was hoping there was some deeper strategery involved there…

Though you still can’t help but wonder if not passing the Stupak bill would’ve stripped 2 pro-life Democrat votes away (and presuming that would’ve kept Cao from voting for it…)

Skywise on November 9, 2009 at 1:41 PM

HR Bill:
1990 pages of paper: $150
100′s of #2 pencils used to write in its margin: $15
Saturday’s debate on the floor: worthless

What this bill will do to the House dems in 2010 and 2012: priceless

jbh45 on November 9, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Why would the pro-choice Dems bother whether or not this amendment exists in the final bill? They dang well know they can get rid of it latter. Why sacrifice their dream of socialist health care of this single issue.

WashJeff on November 9, 2009 at 1:42 PM

DW-S is one of the worst members of the House (and I’m including her in there with Waxman, Frank, Waters, and Pelosi).

I’m not a big fan of Hannity, but he owned her after one of the debates last year. People like her are among the worst in the Democratic Party and it’s no surprise she’s in favor of setting up a federally-funded national abortion mill.

fiatboomer on November 9, 2009 at 1:42 PM

“GOP pits Blue Dogs VS Liberal Democrats over state sponsored abortion in health care bill”
.
better title, and it’s popcorn time.

LincolntheHun on November 9, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Deep voice, big Adams apple, hint of a 5 o’clock shadow…you do the math.
milwife88 on November 9, 2009 at 1:40 PM

I will NOT have you talking about the First Lady in that wa…what…oh…you meant Debbie Schulz. Carry on.

Bishop on November 9, 2009 at 1:43 PM

S/he might be evil, but she’s honest evil.

Orange Doorhinge on November 9, 2009 at 1:43 PM

The democrats are proving that blue dog democrats are dumber than rocks. Pelosi would love for the blue dogs to not come back in 2010. Of course the blue dogs are so stupid as not to understand that and commit political suicide on her wishes.

volsense on November 9, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Nothing will stop the baby killers.

The blood-thirsty look in this broad’s eyes are all one needs to see to know her strategy.

KILL ALL BABIES! (just not the gay ones…)

omnipotent on November 9, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Howabout spade and nuetering for welfare recipients that keep having kids. If they don’t agree to it, they go to jail. It’s just like not paying taxes right?

WashJeff on November 9, 2009 at 1:44 PM

..stupendous! You want to abort a living fetus lady, please do it on your dime. Don’t have me pay for it!

I cannot wait for 2010, I tell ya!

VoyskaPVO on November 9, 2009 at 1:44 PM

If it goes to conference I wonder how many Repubs will be involved or allowed to attend?

Tom

marinetbryant on November 9, 2009 at 1:44 PM

NO, what really needs to happen is they need to make sure that if a Bill gets through the Senate, that is has the EXACT same language in it…

Then, if its dropped in Conference, it is NOT the same bill, and has to start ALL over again… because its a substantive change which was already voted on by both houses.

Romeo13 on November 9, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Gee who didn’t see this one coming? When are these morons that side with the liberals going to learn that there is no honor, no sacred word. How many Chamberlains can we tolerate?

search4truth on November 9, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Pelosi and company absolutely needed to pass the bill, no matter the cost. They would have agreed to anything to get that vote. But the bill is dead already,as the letter from the 2 dozens abortionophiles makes clear.

pedestrian on November 9, 2009 at 1:45 PM

The party that subsidizes poverty and the production of children by the poor is paradoxically the same bunch trying to eliminate the offspring of the poor via abortions.

If the Democrats were really interested in preventing unwanted pregnancies then they would do away with the countless programs that subsidize the production of children by those that can’t afford them such as, SCHIP, Medicaid, free lunch programs, free housing, free vaccinations, food stamps, free child care, and many many more.

The Democrats would get vilified for actually removing the incentives for the poor so they resort to cleaning up their mess by pushing abortions.

Madness.

DerKrieger on November 9, 2009 at 1:45 PM

She’s not pro-choice; she’s pro-abortion. And yes,there’s a difference. The worst is that she’s on record as admitting a child’s life is taken in the process.

T.D.D. on November 9, 2009 at 1:45 PM

i feel powerless….

moonbatkiller on November 9, 2009 at 1:41 PM

buy a rifle, a pistol and a bunch of ammo.

upinak on November 9, 2009 at 1:45 PM

If it goes to conference I wonder how many Repubs will be involved or allowed to attend?

Tom

marinetbryant on November 9, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Joe Cao

fiatboomer on November 9, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Either the pro-life Democrats have to vote for federal subsidies for abortions, which will mean an end to their legislative careers, or vote against the ObamaCare product and force Democrats to start over from scratch.

I don’t believe that any pro-life Democrat will lose a seat because of that. The Party of Death will shower them with money and they’ll all get their very own “Profiles in Courage” awards from the kept media.

Mr. D on November 9, 2009 at 1:46 PM

This is a foolish gesture by the dems…people will see this as a ploy and manipulative.
They may think they get their way, but independents (and that is what the voters battle is all about) will understand the conniving of the dems.
Blue dogs will be forced to vote against the bill…and it makes it easy for the Republicans to voice their concern about integrity and honesty.
She is a fool for going on the record to announce how underhanded and dishonest they are.

right2bright on November 9, 2009 at 1:46 PM

Did anyone ask this “representative” why other Americans should be forced to pay for the mistakes of others? Why do I have to fund an abortion of some irresponsible woman (and her partner)?

DerKrieger on November 9, 2009 at 1:46 PM

Bishop on November 9, 2009 at 1:43 PM

ROTFLMAO!!! I almost peed.

milwife88 on November 9, 2009 at 1:47 PM

I wonder how the aborted babies would have voted.

fourdeucer on November 9, 2009 at 1:47 PM

But the Stupak amendment was much more popular than the bill itself – ie. it got many more votes. Seems to strip the amendment would be to kill the bill. If they could pass the bill without the amendment wouldn’t they have done it? I think Nancy just did whatever it took to pass something, anything, she could take credit for and figured she would decide later on how to keep the special interests in line.

tommyboy on November 9, 2009 at 1:47 PM

AUINSC did you read Ed’s post or just the headline and jump to comment about how stupid the GOP was to vote for Stupak?

If you read the post, you saw Ed explain why voting for Stupak was both the right and strategic thing to do. Voting present would have done nothing except anger the GOP’s pro-life base. The bill still probably would have passed and it would have been one that allowed for federal funding of abortion.

Right now the big rift is among the Democrats. The vote for Stupak kept it that way. They have to try to appease both the Blue Dogs and the far left. It won’t happen and the conference bill will crash and burn no matter what comes out because of the two factions.

As Ed wrote, sometimes principle and strategy meet. This was one of those times.

wardrobedoor on November 9, 2009 at 1:48 PM

This could get interesting for the pro-life Dems who voted for Stupak.

Defy Nancy and don’t get any support for 2010 because you killed Obamacare? She can’t do that, and hold her majority. Primarying them could get messy. Maybe gives them janitor’s closets for offices and parking spaces in the next zip code.

Cave in to Nancy, flip-flop and vote for Obamacare with abortion subsidies? Great rationale to the folks back home, “I traded killing unborn babies to get health care for all. Politics is all about compromise.” That’s a winner, too.

Wethal on November 9, 2009 at 1:48 PM

Thanks for that head’s-up, Deb. Without the Stupak amendment, it won’t pass again.

Oink on November 9, 2009 at 1:49 PM

It probably would have passed anyway. I still don’t trust the RINOs in the senate. To put all your hope in Snowe, Collins, Grahmnesty, and Lieberman isn’t helpful.

deidre on November 9, 2009 at 1:50 PM

In the words of Gomer Pyle and song of Bruce Springsteen: Surprise, surprise.

yoda on November 9, 2009 at 1:50 PM

There you go again, Ed.

People who waste time discussing strategic implications of this or any other move by Osama Obama and the Traitorcrats are making it easier for Pelosi, et. al. to do their work.

So what if they “own” what they pass? Once it’s passed, it is locked in forever, as Congressional actions since FDR’s time prove.

We heard the House wouldn’t pass Obamacare; they did. Now we hear the Senate won’t pass it. Judging by the prognosticators’ track record, they will, and soon.

And if this abomination becomes law, who will undo it? SCOTUS? I have my doubts, particularly under an Obama regime.

I guess Ed and the rest are simply unable to fathom the idea that the opposition here has thrown away the rulebook, and will win by any means necessary.

What Constitution? They don’t care about it.

This is how totalitarians win: their opponents are civilized, and thus are easily vanquished by savages.

Any hope of a change back to what the USA has always stood for pre-Obama and pre-Pelosi in ’10 presupposes that the forces of ACORN, SEIU and other agents of thuggery can be neutralized. That’s a big supposition, especially when so many who wish for the restoration of our Constitutional Republic are blind to the tactics beings used against them.

MrScribbler on November 9, 2009 at 1:51 PM

They had to vote yes and to be honest I’m glad they did. I’m sure they all knew it was a foregone conclusion that it would be stripped – Boehner’s comments were done for a reason.

Sometimes you have to do what you feel is right. That’s why I’m a conservative and that’s why I support conservatives. At least the GOP house has some principles which is sorely lacking on the other side of the aisle.

gophergirl on November 9, 2009 at 1:51 PM

Good summation, Ed. I completely agree.

karlant on November 9, 2009 at 1:51 PM

From his final resting place here in New Hampshire, Claude Rains says hello.

Del Dolemonte on November 9, 2009 at 1:51 PM

DW-S is one of the worst members of the House (and I’m including her in there with Waxman, Frank, Waters, and Pelosi).

fiatboomer on November 9, 2009 at 1:42 PM

So true.

And people think Sarah Palin is dumb and unqualified…..

UltimateBob on November 9, 2009 at 1:51 PM

Gee, who saw that coming?

Will the “principled pro-life Dems” vote against it?

Naw.

stenwin77 on November 9, 2009 at 1:52 PM

Had the Republicans voted “present” and defeated the amendment, Stupak and his coalition would have provided enough votes to pass the bill — with the abortion subsidies.

Yep. The bill would have passed with or without it – Pelosi would never have allowed a vote on the amendment otherwise. It was all kabuki so some Dems could go home and pretend to their constituents that they’d voted in good conscience.

Missy on November 9, 2009 at 1:52 PM

If the bill makes it back to the House with Stupak stripped out, all those “pro-life” Blue Dogs will have to answer one question:

Were they lying then about not voting for a bill that funded abortions, or are they lying now? When did they stop beating their wives?

Sekhmet on November 9, 2009 at 1:52 PM

Voting to approve the Stupak amendment was a moment where strategy and principle converged. It was not only a good tactic, it was the right thing to do.

Ed, are you suggesting that elected Republican leaders in the House had a better legislative strategy to defeat this bill than posters at Hot Air? Really?! How dare you?!!

Loxodonta on November 9, 2009 at 1:53 PM

Are the congress people really this dumb, or, do they think we are really this dumb? These nonsensical shell games these fools play are disgusting.

rplat on November 9, 2009 at 1:54 PM

Nancy will get to kill fetuses afterall. How happy she must be.

bloggless on November 9, 2009 at 1:55 PM

I heard she is related to Sgt. Schultz…you know..the good , genial Nazi

JJKRN on November 9, 2009 at 1:55 PM

“We believe you just don’t play politics with life.”

But, apparently, you can play politics with “choice”. Heh.

unclesmrgol on November 9, 2009 at 1:56 PM

I can not stand this female! She is on Fox all the time and she gets the mute everytime she is on. Gads, she stinks big time.
L

letget on November 9, 2009 at 1:56 PM

I have mixed feelings about the Republican vote. I like the sentiment “We believe you just don’t play politics with life,” and I really appreciate the apparent voting of conscience over politics, but it seems to me that the fact that it was an amendment to such a horrible bill made it enough of a categorical inconsistency that a present vote may have made the most sense.

Maybe I’m being too cynical, but in some ways, I wonder if this wasn’t a more “political” vote for the Republicans. A “present” vote could could be spun in a way to come back to haunt some of these guys come 2010. Voting yes is a more straight-forward way of showing oneself as Pro-Life; a present vote here might have been a tad too nuanced for campaign sound bites.

BlueCollarAstronaut on November 9, 2009 at 1:56 PM

WashJeff on November 9, 2009 at 1:44 PM

I hope you are a lefty troll and not an actual conservative proposing such government mandates.

Even if you are doing so ironically as a conservative, it only provides an opportunity for the actual trolls to pull quote your comment as an example of what they see as the hypocrisy of conservatives and the pro-life community.

We’ve seen trolls come in, leave racist comments and then use their own comments as justification for calling HotAir racist. We don’t need anyone leaving comments proposing government induced sterilization, joke or not.

wardrobedoor on November 9, 2009 at 1:56 PM

It will be interesting when there are a couple of dozen Muslims in government. Who would dare question them or try to put them in a corner? And think of those luscious Muslim voting blocks once you open the floodgates to Muslim immigration (a nice gesture of trust and brotherhood).

BL@KBIRD on November 9, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Great post Ed, I agree. On Saturday night I thought the GOP was questionable in its decision-making, but they ,made the right call. It would’ve passed without Stupak, so might as well support it and let Dems tear each other up over it.

changer1701 on November 9, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Who didn’t see this coming? But it reinforces what I did yesterday – withhold our tithe our mass because the Catholic church is pushing for socialized medicine. I don’t feel bad for having done so; the money will go elsewhere for charity.

Sometimes it’s hard trying to be a catholic gentleman.

madmonkphotog on November 9, 2009 at 1:59 PM

It doesn’t seem like it would be that hard to be smarter than Nancy Pelosi, but congressional Republicans have proved once again that they are the Wile E. Coyote of legislative caucuses.

Next time, when Pelosi hands you a bill amendment called ACME that has a burning fuse on top of it, DON’T TAKE IT!

Idiots.

Cicero43 on November 9, 2009 at 2:00 PM

Rogue government

daesleeper on November 9, 2009 at 1:41 PM

My government would be better than this

Republicans can make that argument only because they supported the Stupak amendment, even against what appeared to be their longer-term interests at that moment. They acted on principle and can now argue that the Stupak coalition must respond in kind or be exposed as the worst kind of hypocrites in election challenges next year — challenges which that Stupak town-hall meeting shows will resonate. Had they tried playing the legislative game with the Stupak amendment, this rift among Democrats shown by Sargent would never have appeared, and they would have lost the ability to highlight a backroom effort to rid the bill of an amendment that received more votes than the bill itself.
Voting to approve the Stupak amendment was a moment where strategy and principle converged. It was not only a good tactic, it was the right thing to do.

Damn right Ed. Ensuring that abortion funding is explicitly denied forces Obama and the rest of his socialist minions to do one of two things, throw pro-baby murder interests under the bus, or prove Congressman Wilson correct, again, in insisting that Abortion BE covered by Obamacare.

Rogue on November 9, 2009 at 2:02 PM

wardrobedoor on November 9, 2009 at 1:56 PM

Illustrating absurdity by being absurd. There is plenty of that at HA.

WashJeff on November 9, 2009 at 2:02 PM

The party of Death actually supporting death? SHOCKED.

portlandon on November 9, 2009 at 2:02 PM

The party of Death actually supporting death? SHOCKED!

portlandon on November 9, 2009 at 2:03 PM

I read sorry cant find linky, that the ArchBibshop of the Council of Bishops called Boehner to make sure they did NOT vote against the Stupak Amendment.

I am glad it leaves them in a good position

I am unsurprised to see the Dems toss lib women unda da bus, it was made clear when they told HRC to sit down and shut up and stop running that NOW, and NARAL and the crew had allowed the DEM iddentity melatonin politics to overrule gender politics

they didnt like HRC OR Sarah, they dont like women unless they are doing what they are told, I tell NOW that every time they ask me for money, never again

and many of we blue collar Dems are also Catholic and we all remember TOTUS line in PA about not wanting his girls ‘punished with a baby’. Yeah this is a huge fault line waiting to open and the one time I think the GOP can go full bore ahead with its social conservatism without alienating a big aprt of the coalition we need to win

go for it, let them show the lib women how they feel and depress their turnout in 2010 as the GOP women and alienated blue collar Dems, who Obama lost in 08 BTW, will do what we always do pund the pavements and work the phones and do mailers for the candidates and to raise funds

women are the backbone of both parties ground game IMO
especially in off year elections
and Seniors too who are

ginaswo on November 9, 2009 at 2:03 PM

But…but…but… I though Joe Wilson was a racist when he yelled out YOU LIE because Obama said that abortion was not covered.

What a bunch of friggin liars.

Cha cha chaaaange. Change for fools.

sarainitaly on November 9, 2009 at 2:03 PM

If abortions are going to be foisted apon us, against our will…and the argument is…that it’s legal….I vote we abort these losers. If they have no issues with killing human beings, let them be the first.

capejasmine on November 9, 2009 at 2:03 PM

I don’t understand. The amendment passes (stripping funding for abortion) then the bill passes without it, but then the language gets stripped out later essentially making the amendment a finger drill? So, if the same dems that voted to amend the bill, vote for the final product that doesn’t contain the language they said they needed to have in order to support the thing in the first place?

what planet am i on?

ted c on November 9, 2009 at 2:03 PM

She was a Planned Parenthood Board member… no conflict of interest there.

mankai on November 9, 2009 at 2:03 PM

Double shocked even.

Bishop on November 9, 2009 at 2:03 PM

What are the odds of the Senate bill also containing some form of the Stupak ammendment?

In which case eliminating the language from both versions would be a clear violation of the intent of both houses, and would also play very poorly with voters in 2010.

MarkTheGreat on November 9, 2009 at 2:03 PM

i feel powerless….

moonbatkiller on November 9, 2009 at 1:41 PM
buy a rifle, a pistol and a bunch of ammo.

upinak on November 9, 2009

Utterly useless without the will to use them.

SKYFOX on November 9, 2009 at 2:04 PM

Only the Repubs who voted for the Stupak ammendment couldn’t see this coming. Everybody else saw this coming from 50 miles away. Typical and it’s why they get out-maneuvered every time. And I’m sure they’ll learn nothing.

AUINSC on November 9, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Did you even read the article before posting?

MarkTheGreat on November 9, 2009 at 2:04 PM

Gee Whiz Deb…..crafting a major bill for”HATE CRIMES LEGISLATION” you of all people should recognize the amount of “HATE” involved in a parent murdering their own child! HMMM Debbie Downer…..what say you

justonevictory on November 9, 2009 at 2:05 PM

If it goes to conference I wonder how many Repubs will be involved or allowed to attend?

Tom

marinetbryant on November 9, 2009 at 1:44 PM

It can’t be fewer than the number allowed to participate in the Porkulus conference.

Better to keep the final bill secret until the last possible minute as well.

MarkTheGreat on November 9, 2009 at 2:07 PM

Well, well. That was rather quick.

I guess all the angry phone calls from the ‘Pro-Choice’ crowd was getting on their nerves.

And the threats of ‘no more money for you’.

CPT. Charles on November 9, 2009 at 2:07 PM

The lesson here is that Dems will do ANYTHING to keep moving the process forward, no matter how short-sighted it is. They think whatever problems lie ahead, they’ll just deal with them later. In reality, they are just building up to a bigger and bigger train-wreck.

karlant on November 9, 2009 at 2:07 PM

So we are once again left with the question: Is there anything at all that Pelosi et al. will not do to sleaze this bill into law?

I used to thing that poisoning a municipal water supply would be beyond her, but now I am not so sure.

(switching to bottled water now…)

sultanp on November 9, 2009 at 2:07 PM

Lemme get this straight. Mainstream Democrats are zealously trying to publicly fund the murder of babies, which caused some consternation among the “weirdo” Blue Dog Democrats. So they pulled a nudge-nudge wink-wink fast one and pretended they wouldn’t REALLY publicly fund baby murder. Only now the Blue Dog weirdos are figuring out they got duped and are upset they were lied to.

Which begs the question, “You’re cutting deals with BABY MURDERERS and you’re upset about their truthfulness?!” How about channeling a little righteous indignation into the fact they want publicly run baby slaughter houses? I’m just askin’.

miles on November 9, 2009 at 2:07 PM

So, if the same dems that voted to amend the bill, vote for the final product that doesn’t contain the language they said they needed to have in order to support the thing in the first place?

what planet am i on?

ted c on November 9, 2009 at 2:03 PM

The only problem is that some might have voted to Stupak, while not being truly pro-life. Just sort of against public funding of that sort of thing. So they will just ignore the issue when voting on the final bill. But because the 220-215 is so close, it will only take a few pro-life votes to kill the whole thing.

pedestrian on November 9, 2009 at 2:08 PM

This is a foolish gesture by the dems…people will see this as a ploy and manipulative.

right2bright on November 9, 2009 at 1:46 PM

A recent poll found that 60% of Democrats believed that passing ObamaCare will result in more people voting Democratic next year.

MarkTheGreat on November 9, 2009 at 2:10 PM

Baby killers.

Kensington on November 9, 2009 at 2:11 PM

That’s no woman.

BPD on November 9, 2009 at 2:13 PM

A recent poll of current people who have desks in the Oval Office found that 60% of Democrats believed that passing ObamaCare will result in more people voting Democratic next year.

MarkTheGreat on November 9, 2009 at 2:10 PM

BobMbx on November 9, 2009 at 2:14 PM

A recent poll found that 60% of Democrats believed that passing ObamaCare will result in more people voting Democratic next year.MarkTheGreat on November 9, 2009 at

Ha.
Wishful thinking, I’d say….

chai on November 9, 2009 at 2:14 PM

She’s ugly inside and out.

Nice analysis, Ed. We’ll see if you’re correct.

SouthernGent on November 9, 2009 at 2:15 PM

Andrea Mitchell, NBC News Washington, just told MSNBC that Lieberman has officially come out in support of fully blocking the Senate HCR Bill.

Enoxo on November 9, 2009 at 2:15 PM

Either the pro-life Democrats have to vote for federal subsidies for abortions, which will mean an end to their legislative careers, or vote against the ObamaCare product and force Democrats to start over from scratch

let’s go with option #2 Ed

cmsinaz on November 9, 2009 at 2:16 PM

But because the 220-215 is so close, it will only take a few pro-life votes to kill the whole thing.

pedestrian on November 9, 2009 at 2:08 PM

Remember that 220 to 215 is theater. It was as close as it needed to be.

LibTired on November 9, 2009 at 2:18 PM

A recent poll found that 60% of Democrats believed that passing ObamaCare will result in more people voting Democratic next year.

MarkTheGreat on November 9, 2009 at 2:10 PM

The fact that only 60% believe that is telling. And it won’t happen. Obamacare piled on top of double-digit unemployment and a failed porkulus bill(not to mention Obama’s dithering on Afghanistan) will lead to disaster in the midterms.

It’s amazing that the Dems have somehow blocked last Tuesday’s election results from their collective memory.

Doughboy on November 9, 2009 at 2:19 PM

If it goes to conference I wonder how many Repubs will be involved or allowed to attend?

Tom

marinetbryant on November 9, 2009 at 1:44 PM

surely you jest, no (R)s will be allowed to attend…

except for maybe Cao…

cmsinaz on November 9, 2009 at 2:19 PM

A recent poll found that 60% of Democrats believed that passing ObamaCare will result in more people voting Democratic next year.

MarkTheGreat on November 9, 2009 at 2:10 PM

I didn’t see that poll…but I was posting about the manipulation of putting a bill in with the intent of pulling it out.
And I would bet that 60% was for some kind of health care reform, not this bill.
Of course you wouldn’t have that information…that would perhaps undermine your post.

right2bright on November 9, 2009 at 2:23 PM

Andrea Mitchell, NBC News Washington, just told MSNBC that Lieberman has officially come out in support of fully blocking the Senate HCR Bill.

Enoxo on November 9, 2009 at 2:15 PM

Great news, opens the door for others not to follow…

right2bright on November 9, 2009 at 2:24 PM

To many republicans don’t get it. In November 2010 we will be voting all the bums out! Republicrats and democans!

MCGIRV on November 9, 2009 at 2:27 PM

Ive been a bit on the fence whether they should have voted yes or present, but I think I tend to lean more to Ed’s way of thinking on this. First, though they only got 220 votes, I believe Pelosi probably had some more in the bank and just wants to allow some political cover where they can afford to. If it gets stripped in committee, we have now put a lot of Dems on record and there will be much more severe political consequences for them now that this is on the record and in the headlines. Had we made them eat it now, they’d probably have cover to just push it to the senate and the story would have been those obstructive republicans once again.

I guess the short answer is that the action was always going to be in the senate, and at least the house was able to put in a politically inconvenient obstacle for them to deal with on the way.

stldave on November 9, 2009 at 2:27 PM

Andrea Mitchell, NBC News Washington, just told MSNBC that Lieberman has officially come out in support of fully blocking the Senate HCR Bill.

Enoxo on November 9, 2009 at 2:15 PM

That’s great news – he is one democrat that actually has some principles.

gophergirl on November 9, 2009 at 2:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 2