Stupak: We have at least a dozen ready to flip to No on ObamaCare

posted at 8:48 am on March 4, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Chris Matthews just couldn’t believe it. Eric Cantor insisted that a dozen members of the House that had previously voted in support of ObamaCare would flip to no votes on the rebound — more than likely enough to kill the Senate bill from getting passed. The Hardball host asked Stupak if that could really be true, and Stupak gave him the bad news:

The Senate’s healthcare bill would lose 12 Democratic votes in the House, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Wednesday.

Stupak, the sponsor of an amendment to the House healthcare bill which barred federal subsidies for health plans covering abortion, said that 12 lawmakers who had previously supported healthcare reform legislation in the House.

“It’s accurate to say there are at least 12 of us who voted for healthcare that have indicated to the speaker and others that unless you change this language, we will vote against it,” Stupak said during an appearance on MSNBC. …

The congressman’s comments come on the heels of his claims last week, when he said he knows of 15-20 Democratic lawmakers who are witholding support for the bill because of “other problems.” But it is not clear if or how many overlap between the two groups.

Who are the twelve? The clip lists these House members:

  • Joe Cao (R-LA)
  • Jerry Costello (D-IL)
  • Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA)
  • Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
  • Steve Dreihaus (D-OH)
  • Brad Ellsworth (D-IN)
  • Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
  • Dale Kildee (D-MI)
  • Dan Lipinski (D-IL)
  • Jim Oberstar (D-MN)
  • Charlie Wilson (D-OH)
  • Stupak himself (D-MI)

Notice anything interesting about that list?  With the exception of Oberstar, these all represent either red states or districts with significantly conservative tilts.  Even Oberstar’s district is more conservative than Oberstar usually votes.  Joe Cao represents New Orleans, but he’s also a Republican — the only Republican to vote for ObamaCare in either chamber — and he’s not going to make that mistake again, especially without Stupak’s anti-abortion language as a cover.

The original bill passed by five votes.  Pelosi had extra votes in her back pocket, but did she have seven of them?  Actually, make that nine, since Raul Grijalva and Michael Arcuri look like they’ll flip, but for other reasons.  And if these walk away, how many other Democrats in tough districts will choose to walk off the cliff for Nancy Pelosi only to have the bill fail anyway?  Don’t be surprised if this prompts more late flips to opposition.

Pelosi may have an answer, albeit unlikely and unwieldy: Stupak suggested that the House could work on a parallel bill to reinsert the Stupak language on abortion, but that would have to pass the Senate, too — and Obama would have to sign it.  Do any of the people on Stupak’s list really think that Pelosi will pursue that and that Obama would agree to it?  Or do they just need a fig leaf?


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

In Ohio, Driehaus is a first-termer in the district next to mine–far SW corner of Ohio, west side of Cincinnati. It’s largely a blue-collar area–very Catholic. I’m not sure he can count on a big black vote in an election where Obama’s not on the ticket. He already voted for cap-and-trade, and he heard about it. If he votes for Obamacare, he might as return his office keys to Steve Chabot, the incumbent he beat in 2008 and his opponent in 2010.

BuckeyeSam on March 4, 2010 at 9:59 AM

I’m not feeling the hope. Excerpts from the story at The Hill that Ed linked to:

The Michigan Democrat said he’d spoken to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) about the prospects of a “sidebar” bill on abortion that would be tied to the final healthcare bill.

“It would have to be a separate bill; you could sidebar it to the final bill,” he said. “One bill doesn’t pass without the other. They walk down the aisle together.”…

…Stupak said he still suspected, though, that Democrats wouldn’t allow their health reform efforts, one of their top domestic priorities, to go down over concerns on abortion.

Buy Danish on March 4, 2010 at 10:00 AM

It’s over. Deathcare will pass.

andy85719 on March 4, 2010 at 10:06 AM

fig leaf hunting.

MarkTheGreat on March 4, 2010 at 10:10 AM

I don’t trust any of these guys for a second, so color me skeptical.

I just want all this to be over with, frankly. Hopefully without anything passing, but it’s just dragged on for months on end.

changer1701 on March 4, 2010 at 10:12 AM

It’s over. Deathcare will pass.

andy85719 on March 4, 2010 at 10:06 AM

If that is true, this pig would have passed last summer, fall and winter.

It’s over when it comes up for a vote and passes. If they had the votes, it would be voting on as I type. They don’t have the votes…never had the votes.

They only will get the votes if people give up and bend over…as your comment suggests.

tatersalad on March 4, 2010 at 10:13 AM

tatersalad on March 4, 2010 at 10:13 AM

I agree. They don’t have the votes and they are not going to get the votes. At this point all they can do is try to paint the GOP as obstructionists, but even that is a FAIL because we have “bipartisan opposition”.

dogsoldier on March 4, 2010 at 10:20 AM

I thought Lipinski’s district (Illinois) was in/near Chicago. I’ll have to look it up — I would have thought his was a Dem stronghold. Obviously there’s a good chance I’m wrong!

Sure hope this is true. I want this down in flames.

lizzieillinois on March 4, 2010 at 8:55 AM

He’s got an office in Oak Lawn-which is So. West ‘burbs.
He’s not totally Chicago.
Also-’Hurricane’ Caterina and her Chicago Tea Party Patriots(I quit CTPP because I though Cat’ was going too far on certain things) have being making Dan’s congressional life a living Hades.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 4, 2010 at 10:21 AM

Buy Danish on March 4, 2010 at 10:00 AM

Yeah, as mentioned above, they won’t let federal abortion funding tank the thing. Right now, they are stuck on the procedural difficulty of making it happen without sending it back to the Senate, but they’ll make that tradeoff when they get the procedure figured out. Obama already has thrown his bone to the GOP so he can claim an effort at bipartisanship inclusion. They are ready to pull the trigger on this thing.

a capella on March 4, 2010 at 10:21 AM

Ironically, we may have one of two groups to thank for the death of Obamacare…the social conservatives or the far left.

Vince on March 4, 2010 at 10:23 AM

I am pretty sure Costello’s district includes East St. Louis. I don’t think his district as a whole could be classified as anything more than middle of the road. I would hardly call it conservative.

tgharris on March 4, 2010 at 10:25 AM

I have to admit that anyone would half a brain would have to come to the conclusion that if the Dems had the votes that they would have passed Obamacare last year.

technopeasant on March 4, 2010 at 10:26 AM

fig leaf hunting.

MarkTheGreat on March 4, 2010 at 10:10 AM

I don’t think so. It’s the language.

AnninCA on March 4, 2010 at 10:29 AM

It’s over. Deathcare will pass.

andy85719 on March 4, 2010 at 10:06 AM

I tend to agree. Nancy will make it happen, even if the final bill is nonsensical. LOL*

AnninCA on March 4, 2010 at 10:30 AM

This is vastly entertaining to watch, albeit rather stressful. What a grand time to be a political addict!

Bob's Kid on March 4, 2010 at 10:34 AM

Pelosi-Reid will do whatever it takes to get something passed. Then it’ll be left to the GOP to challenge its legality/Constitutionality. Unfortunately, we already know how that works out.

petefrt on March 4, 2010 at 10:35 AM

This is vastly entertaining to watch, albeit rather stressful. What a grand time to be a political addict!

Bob’s Kid on March 4, 2010 at 10:34 AM

No kidding. It’s a legimate question for Americans.

I think it has to do with security. You willing to follow Europe and pay high taxes, give up independence in exchange for more security?

It’ll be fascinating to watch Americans decide.

AnninCA on March 4, 2010 at 10:44 AM

This bill, as it stands, will not pass…congress is too greedy, they need their jobs more then they need this bill.
And if Republicans end up in majority, a lot of dems will not want to be on the wrong side of this issue.

right2bright on March 4, 2010 at 10:46 AM

Interesting quotes from Robert Byrd in 2005. over at Neal’s news:

But witness how men with motives and a majority can manipulate law to cruel and unjust ends. Historian Alan Bullock writes that Hitler’s dictatorship rested on the constitutional foundation of a single law, the Enabling Law. Hitler needed a two-thirds vote to pass that law, and he cajoled his opposition in the Reichstag to support it.

Bullock writes that “Hitler was prepared to promise anything to get his bill through, with the appearances of legality preserved intact.” And he succeeded.

Hitler’s originality lay in his realization that effective revolutions, in modern conditions, are carried out with, and not against, the power of the State: the correct order of events was first to secure access to that power and then begin his revolution.

Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality; he recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal.

Do any of you Dems recognize some of that as the same tactics that are being employed today?

Chip on March 4, 2010 at 10:49 AM

Did you see scrappleface? Obama wants up or down vote on the U.S. Constitution. Closer to reality that most will acknowledge.

tarpon on March 4, 2010 at 10:51 AM

Even Oberstar’s district is more conservative than Oberstar usually votes.

MN-8 (Duluth, Hibbing and the rest of the Iron Range). Red ore, rednecks and blue votes.

The only thing Oberstar needs to worry about if votes for the Senate version of Obamacare is not getting a wafer and sip of wine from the accordion-playing Polka Priest in Eveleth.

Bruno Strozek on March 4, 2010 at 10:55 AM

tarpon on March 4, 2010 at 10:51 AM

Brilliant link. I just posted it to my facebook profile.

Buy Danish on March 4, 2010 at 11:15 AM

I think it has to do with security. You willing to follow Europe and pay high taxes, give up independence in exchange for more security?

AnninCA on March 4, 2010 at 10:44 AM

Our taxes are already high, Ann. The real sticking point is what are we getting for our money…and at the moment the answer is “d**n little”.

Obamacare will do nothing to solve that equation, real reform has long since gone the way of the dodo.

Dark-Star on March 4, 2010 at 11:25 AM

I won’t just take any of this with a grain of salt. Nope! Dems cannot be trusted, and seem to come out and say things, then do the opposite. Everyone gripes about Republicans not standing up enough, when overall, I think they’ve done a pretty good job trying to rebuff this bill.

That being said, where are the Dems that should stand up and speak out against this bill? Not just for the cost, and for the fact that Americans have voiced it loud, and clear….WE DO NOT WANT THIS….but for the fact that it is unconstitutional!?

We can’t put the cart before the horse here, but I’ll be danged if I give up. We need to toughen up, and commit to the long haul on this. It took us years to win wars…and if our ancestors could do that, surely we can buck up, and keep fighting this!?

capejasmine on March 4, 2010 at 11:32 AM

You know what’s awesome? The MSM has had to shut the hell up about that whole “Obama the persuader/uniter” crap, that’s what awesome.

29Victor on March 4, 2010 at 12:20 PM

Not to be a Pollyanna, but never underestimate the weakness of you opponent. I believe the Dems are chalked full of “True Believers,” but it is equally as filled with career pols. There are merits to not falling on your sword for an unpopular ideology… such as maintaining your job.

And capejasmine,

We can’t put the cart before the horse here, but I’ll be danged if I give up. We need to toughen up, and commit to the long haul on this. It took us years to win wars…and if our ancestors could do that, surely we can buck up, and keep fighting this!?

RIGHT ON! Sack up, quit declaring surrender or move to the rear. This is a worthwhile fight and it has just begun.

RMOccidental on March 4, 2010 at 12:23 PM

Or do they just need a fig leaf?

Yes.

Dr Evil on March 4, 2010 at 12:37 PM

What, no tingle, Chrissy?

fred5678 on March 4, 2010 at 12:48 PM

Nice to see some Ohio reps are starting to see the writing on the wall. I don’t envision my rep, Mary Jo Kilroy, doing the same any time soon.

flyawaybird on March 4, 2010 at 1:42 PM

What, no tingle, Chrissy?

fred5678 on March 4, 2010 at 12:48 PM

♫Tingle, tingle, little star,♫
♫Crackpot libtards from afar,♫
♫In their iv’ry towers so high,♫
♫Like pollution in the sky…♫

Dark-Star on March 4, 2010 at 1:45 PM

We’d better hope this line is just cover for pols who want to vote no for other reasons. If that’s all that’s holding it back, that language will get changed, or those Dems will cave with a promise of a modification immediately after passage.

Dems regularly show no opposition to Federal money being used for needle exchange, condom give aways, and are happy to do nothing in the face of immigration/kidnapping for worldwide slavery/prostitution rings, and a whole list of other things. A little thing like Federal funding for abortion won’t make twelve of them hesitate more than a minute, especially under the moral pressure their Progressive brethren can exert. Middle-of-the-roaders – by definition – have no moral backbone and can’t be expected to resist for long.

So, if that’s true, why did any Democrat vote no before? They had other reasons, count on it.

JDPerren on March 4, 2010 at 1:53 PM

Middle-of-the-roaders – by definition – have no moral backbone and can’t be expected to resist for long.

I hereby present you with the Golden Broom, in honor of your sweeping overgeneralization.

Dark-Star on March 4, 2010 at 2:11 PM

Did Chris Matthews just say he understands an issue of conscious? Somehow I doubt that . . .

btw I can’t tell you how hard I *facepalm*ed when I realized I moved to the state that elected the ONLY Republican that voted “yes” on the bill. I don’t trust Cao for a second.

Ingenue on March 4, 2010 at 3:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 2