Stupak still a no, and not just on abortion
posted at 8:48 am on March 16, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Bart Stupak not only says that the dozen members in his coalition aren’t “really” wavering, the Democratic Congressman also says that abortion isn’t the only problem with the final ObamaCare push. Stupak notes that there are “250″ bills passed by the House languishing in the Senate, and wonders why anyone would assume the Senate would act any more enthusiastically on a reconciliation bill. He also emphasized with Greta van Susteren that Democratic leadership has turned this into Let’s Make a Deal — and that Stupak wants 72 hours after the reconciliation bill gets written before any vote on the Senate bill:
VAN SUSTEREN: Last time we spoke, you were — if I may be so bold to say, you said that you were not going to vote for what you saw as the bill that was coming your way. Has your position changed since last week?
REP. BART STUPAK, D – MICH.: No, it’s not changed at all. We’re still not planning on voting for health care unless we can address some concerns. As I said before, there’s many concerns with this bill, especially with the House — with our vote, we sort of pass the Senate bill without any amendments. It goes to the president, he signs it, and then we have to do reconciliation. What if reconciliation does not get through? I mean, I’m sure we can pass it in the House, but what about the Senate?
Members of the House are very uncomfortable, in a way, voting on a piece of legislation and you don’t know — going to be corrected by the Senate. We have over 250-some pieces of legislation sitting in the Senate, waiting for them to pass it. Is this going to be another one?
On the numbers:
VAN SUSTEREN: … where we stand on the numbers in terms of how far away is Speaker Pelosi?
STUPAK: On my 12?
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, not…
STUPAK: Oh, you mean for the whole bill.
VAN SUSTEREN: Right.
STUPAK: Hard to say. I would only guesstimate on my side — I’m not in there counting votes with them. But I’d be surprised if they have 200 votes.
VAN SUSTEREN: Two hundred?
STUPAK: Yes. They need 216. I’d be surprised if they have 200.
However, on that point, a note of caution. If they don’t have more than 200 now, it may be that some Democrats are holding out for their own version of the Cornhusker Kickback and not withholding support for any other purpose. Stupak sees the CBO score as the watershed event, but the CBO can’t score the bill until Pelosi finally hollows out the shell and starts filling it with legislative language and pork.
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 Next »
The more he tries to position himself as a moderate, the less I trust him. Heck, I’m getting as cynical as Allah.
csdeven on March 16, 2010 at 8:52 AM
Don’t you think it is strange to have all these people (Pelosi, Hoyer, Larson, Obama) come out in recent days saying ‘I am absolutely confident’ we will pass this this week and we have the votes?
If they had the ‘votes’, this thing would have been passed last summer, fall, winter and yesterday.
They don’t have the votes and Stupak is closer to the truth than anybody.
This is going to crash and burn by Sunday.
tatersalad on March 16, 2010 at 8:53 AM
Due to his own party’s pure toxicity, no doubt he wouldn’t vote for this bill to save his life now.
Akzed on March 16, 2010 at 8:53 AM
I hope Stupak’s right. Will their greed overcome their fear of their constituents? Will their party loyalty overcome their desire for re-election? Stay tuned for today’s episode of As The Stomach Churns.
kingsjester on March 16, 2010 at 8:55 AM
I just hope they’re not using the Stupak 12 (or whatever number) to try and convince people that the Democratic Party is moderate, and anything but an extremist, baby-sacrificing, death-paneling, oblivion-spending, country-destroying nightmare.
LibTired on March 16, 2010 at 8:55 AM
At least the WH is giving 3000% effort.
Notorious GOP on March 16, 2010 at 8:56 AM
I’m inclined to believe Stupak is out of the loop. The filthy lying coward and his cronies are courting the extreme left like Kucinich now. I want this bill to go down in flames but I predict that Pelosi will announce victory sometime today or tomorrow. Signing ceremony on Friday. Betrayal of America immediately.
highhopes on March 16, 2010 at 8:56 AM
I think he will stick to his no vote, as he has become such a high profile no vote. He may have also calculated that he can win in the fall either way.
He can be the guy who still put unborn life above politics if the bill passes (hard to primary that), and if the bill fails, he is one of the Dems who chose correctly to vote no on a dreadful bill while still being open to the idea of reform (also hard to primary that).
Wethal on March 16, 2010 at 8:56 AM
I just cannot see how this all happens by this weekend. Unless– all due process is thrown out the window and the Democrats take over as dictators of the country . . . oh wait.
DrStock on March 16, 2010 at 8:57 AM
I bet,Team Hopey has Stupak on the Liberal Purge List!(sarc).
canopfor on March 16, 2010 at 8:57 AM
I hope you are right but I am more certain that you are wrong. The rats need a win here and the introduction of the “Slaughter Solution” proves that they will go as low and undemocratic as necessary.
highhopes on March 16, 2010 at 8:58 AM
I would venture to guess this: not only are the final congressional votes being bought with bribes, but the bribes themselves are being concealed so that they are not easy to detect.
Some bribes might not show up until future pieces of legislation. We may never know but this is a sick, sick culture in Congress right now.
Edouard on March 16, 2010 at 8:58 AM
They already have made that determination, and they came down squarely on the side of extremism, baby-sacrificing, death-paneling, oblivion-spending, and country-destroying.
steveegg on March 16, 2010 at 8:59 AM
Only a fool would think that National Socialist Healthcare will bring down costs.
Only a fool would think that National Socialist Healthcare will bring down the deficit.
Only a fool would think that National Socialist Healthcare will not destroy the healthcare system.
And Only a fool would think that National Socialist Healthcare will not destroy the economy.
Insert witty screen name here on March 16, 2010 at 8:59 AM
They’re going to be using the Slaughter House tomorrow.
Enoxo on March 16, 2010 at 9:00 AM
This entire procedure might be the most blatant example corruption I have ever witnessed. Drug deals go down with more integrity than this bunch has displayed.
Keemo on March 16, 2010 at 9:00 AM
Perhaps I’m in the minority here, but I have much less of a problem with someone who disagrees with me and yet has integrity for his or her position.
I guess I am saying that, from what I’ve read, Stupak has my respect. I highly doubt he’d get my vote, even were I in his district, but I can respect someone even if I think they hold incorrect beliefs.
Scott H on March 16, 2010 at 9:01 AM
Nancy can add all she wants in the way of pork to the Senate bill. but she must bring the exact language for a vote. and whatever “sh*t” she adds, has to go to the Senate for a yes vote.
and that is not going to happen.
kelley in virginia on March 16, 2010 at 9:01 AM
I repeat myself form other threads, two optimistic things since last night:
Lawrence O’Donnell on Morning Joe doesn’t think it will pass. As substitute for Olbermann he has to read the cheerleading script on that show.
Michael Moore on same show last night said Kucinich should stay a “no” even if he is the one vote needed. Moore sounded like he could care less if this is Obama’s Waterloo, he has it coming.
Marcus on March 16, 2010 at 9:01 AM
keemo: drug deals are free enterprise capitalism.
kelley in virginia on March 16, 2010 at 9:02 AM
The ironic thing…
The Senate bought off Nelson
To road-block Stupak.
Had they not done this
Stupak would be in the bill,
And it would be law.
Haiku Guy on March 16, 2010 at 9:03 AM
Paul Ryan said as much last week. The bribes will be hidden. The Dems learned from the Cornhusker Kickback.
Wethal on March 16, 2010 at 9:03 AM
Does the use of the Slaughter Ammendment need to be voted on? Seems to me that would be almost as, if not more toxic than the bill itself.
TheVer on March 16, 2010 at 9:04 AM
They have to vote on the rules for the debate on the reconciliation bill. And inside that is a self-executing rule that “deems” the Senate bill already passed.
Enoxo on March 16, 2010 at 9:07 AM
Lawmaking by bribery, with taxpayer money … That speaks volumes about the character of our dear reader and members of in Congress.
tarpon on March 16, 2010 at 9:08 AM
Slaughter would be sunk by SCOTUS in one sitting.
Akzed on March 16, 2010 at 9:10 AM
I can’t think of a better ending to this process that the names of the last 2 schemes the libs have come up with..
‘Slaughter’ and ‘Self Executing’
Exactly what is going to happen to them in November.
tatersalad on March 16, 2010 at 9:10 AM
I just want to see Gibbs try to spin the crushing defeat of this Bill as a success for the Obama “administration”.
And then see Barry unable to mask his hatred for the vast majority of Americans from that point on.
Barry’s going to melt down and shriek like a toddler who didn’t get her cookie, just you wait and see.
NoDonkey on March 16, 2010 at 9:11 AM
The SS (great acronym, huh?) is merely a threat to “undecided” Democrats. They’re not going to use it, just like they’re not going to use reconciliation (a plot to fool “undecided” Democrats).
They’re trying to manipulate people into voting their way on the bill any way they can.
LibTired on March 16, 2010 at 9:12 AM
Hmmmm – maybe Slaughter will rule that the bill can pass on a voice vote only. That way, Pelosi can claim that the voice vote was overwhelmingly ‘aye’ and get on with this pig.
Who needs an actual 216 votes when you can claim 216 votes? Same difference, right?
Unconstitutional? Of course – but that won’t stop the socialist march to a better tomorrow!!
Timothy S. Carlson on March 16, 2010 at 9:13 AM
Akzed: While that is true, don’t you think that Congress understands that?
Has anyone considered the fact that Congress has the power to repeal the Judiciary Act of 1791? Also, if I recall correctly, have we not in the past said that Congress has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court? What is to stop this Congress from specifically removing the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction from this bill?
At that point… what can be done?
Scott H on March 16, 2010 at 9:13 AM
Kissell and McIntyre (NC) office staff say they are definitely voting no. Even with the Stupak ammendment. Everyone needs to call. Keep the pressure on!
bloggless on March 16, 2010 at 9:15 AM
By being the deciding vote or a household name that stopped Obama Care you will get more campaign donations than anyone and receive national attention. This is great if anyone has delusions of running for president like most politicians do. I just hope more of the Democrats will start to recognize this. Stupak is becoming a household name now because of his resistance.
jeffn21 on March 16, 2010 at 9:16 AM
If this bill is defeated, we will see The First Presidential Temper Tantrum (TM) and it will be glorious.
kingsjester on March 16, 2010 at 9:16 AM
Do you promise? I really want to see that…
Timothy S. Carlson on March 16, 2010 at 9:16 AM
I’ve been overly optimistic that this bill wouldn’t pass for pretty much the whole run–even after the Senate passed the bill in December I stated they would have a very, very difficult time trying to reconcile the bills between the two chambers due to the vast ideological differences of the bodies.
But the fact that they’ve spent three months now trying to find new rules to bend, and new ways to skirt the obstacles (such as Brown) makes me feel hopeless for the first time. The whole Slaughter House 2010 is just the icing on top of the hopeless cake.
It’s kind of just been settling in that this abomination is going to be made into law this weekend, and there’s frankly nothing we can do to stop it. Sure, we can make calls, we can march (as some are today) on Washington. But when the Democrats are bribing and paying off our Representatives… there’s nothing we can do until an election comes around.
And the liberal gloating is going to be horrendous this weekend, for many months afterward. The only thing that likely will end it is a slaughter for Democrats in November–beyond epic proportions. And with healthcare off the media, and the faux-pivot to “jobs”… I’m not entirely sure the electorate will stay heated and angered for seven months to serve them justice.
Meh.
Enoxo on March 16, 2010 at 9:17 AM
So does Pelosi intend to have the House ‘deem it as passed’ before the CBO even scores it?
ProfessorMiao on March 16, 2010 at 9:17 AM
Forceful removal and perp walks for all inhabitants of the Capitol Building
TheVer on March 16, 2010 at 9:17 AM
Pretty much everyone with a source in Washington have said they’re going to use the Slaughter House tomorrow during the Rules Committee markup of the reconciliation bill.
Enoxo on March 16, 2010 at 9:19 AM
I find it disturbing that the USA is not learning the lessons of the UK and Canada and Australia and even thinking of something like this.
Do Americans ever look beyond their 50 states?
Crux Australis on March 16, 2010 at 9:19 AM
This time the payoffs will come later. They won’t be so transparent this time around. An undercover Pelosi…..shudder.
d1carter on March 16, 2010 at 9:20 AM
Word…Im actually kind of proud of ol Bart – one of the few politicians MI has that a spine
TheVer on March 16, 2010 at 9:20 AM
that has a spine
TheVer on March 16, 2010 at 9:21 AM
These Blue Dog reps have been identified as possibly switching to “yes”. Give them a call, remind them that what happened in Mass. can happen in their state. A lot of people outside of Mass. sent in millions of dollars to Brown and even manned phones for his campaign. Call call call!
Weight of Glory on March 16, 2010 at 9:21 AM
Do Americans ever look beyond their 50 states?
Crux Australis on March 16, 2010 at 9:19 AM
There’s a lot that don’t, mate. A bunch of them aren’t even aware of life beyond the Northeast and Left Coast of America.
kingsjester on March 16, 2010 at 9:22 AM
Timothy S. Carlson on March 16, 2010 at 9:16 AM
Just visualize Barry flopping all over the floor, tears streaming down his face, drool running down his chin as he screams, “I wanna it! I wanna it! Gimmee gimmee gimee”!
Makes me think that if his hippie slattern momma had done her job right, the rest of us wouldn’t be stuck with her jackass offspring.
NoDonkey on March 16, 2010 at 9:22 AM
Modern society forces a man to choose between being cynical or naive.
tommyboy on March 16, 2010 at 9:23 AM
Hell yes! We have been pointing at the shortcomings of the British and Canadian systems since before this BS was started. The D’s mentality is it failed because THEY didn’t implement it.
TheVer on March 16, 2010 at 9:24 AM
I just listened very carefully to Jason Altmire on Fox News and the key line he said was ‘I am not going to vote for a bill that my constituents are uncomfortable with’. Well, 60% of this voters are uncomfortable with this.
I think this is the ‘escape hatch’ that will defeat this bill. People like Altmire will claim that they must reflect the will of the people (novel idea) and vote no on this bill.
At the end of the day, everyone is looking to protect their jobs.
tatersalad on March 16, 2010 at 9:26 AM
My thinking on that is that a) it’ll take a long time to get to the SC, and b) who knows what the composition of the SC will be at that time.
I’d like to agree, and *do* agree that the SC *should* strike it down, but I’m consistently amazed at the number of folks on the SC that vote counter to Constitutionality – and that number could increase under the right circumstances.
Midas on March 16, 2010 at 9:27 AM
Keep calling, calling, calling.
The firm no voters in Congress, when they talk publicly, are saying that the unrelenting public pressure is mattering.
Edouard on March 16, 2010 at 9:28 AM
Confounding, isn’t it?
Midas on March 16, 2010 at 9:28 AM
The Dems in the House will do whatever they want and can do because the MSM will cover for them. If they have the votes to ram this through, no matter how low they have to stoop, they will do it.
SurferDoc on March 16, 2010 at 9:29 AM
And if it does make it’s way to the SCOTUS, Obama will just nominate more Justices even if there are no vacancies in order to protect the bill. Remember, there has been a push for Obama to add Justices to the bench.
Enoxo on March 16, 2010 at 9:30 AM
Americans DO NOT support this bill, Crux. Unfortunately in a Bush hate stupor, Americans voted in a bunch of crazy radical socialists. Not that they wanted to, but that’s beside the point.
Now this country is basically at war with it’s own congress.
I still think it will pass, because, well, they haf vays…. I can’t believe that Pelosi won’t be able to pull it off.
btw, I haven’t seen Olbermann on msnbc lately? Breakdown? or “vacation”? You decide.
B Man on March 16, 2010 at 9:30 AM
How ironic that in the end we can always count on Democrat politicians to vote their own pocketbooks instead of principal. I guess that door swings both ways. Even though they want socialism they won’t vote for it ’cause they’d lose their government jobs. Ironic, no?
Mojave Mark on March 16, 2010 at 9:31 AM
I visualize Ash from “Alien” at towards the end, when he malfunctioned and went crazy spinning around in circles.
B Man on March 16, 2010 at 9:32 AM
Liberalism in leftists is a mental disorder whatever country they live in.
I’ll cringe in embarrassment when the Australian left fawn all over Obama when he visits next week.
Crux Australis on March 16, 2010 at 9:34 AM
If the unemployment figures remain the same, (which economist predict), Republicans can remind the public that Democrats passed a multi-trillion dollar entitlement that took over a year to produce, while purposely ignoring the plight of the working class, who are more concerned about saving their jobs, than getting taxed to death by this disasterous legislation. I’m just not sure the liberals can chortal about this “historic direction” designed to get us all closer to the single payer system—and total government dependency.
Rovin on March 16, 2010 at 9:37 AM
All they have to do is cook the numbers, like they did in the January-February period. The media only reports the initial numbers, they don’t report the revised numbers.
I highly expect to see them touting unemployment at 7% or less by November–even though it’s beyond not true.
Enoxo on March 16, 2010 at 9:42 AM
Dems in the House are definitely facing a “Sophie’s Choice” moment. It’s a lose/lose situation where they can buck party pressure and risk not getting the perqs of a party in majority status or they can risk the wrath of their constituents and might not even get to stick around for the next term of Congress.
Pelosi’s role is to convince them that their life will be a living hell if they don’t support her on this bill. The voters role is to convince them that their political career will be over if they vote for Obamacare. It really all comes down to who has the stronger hand (which differs from one Congressman to another).
highhopes on March 16, 2010 at 9:43 AM
Speaking of dealmaking, The Republicans should be talking Committee postions with these guys as Polosi and Reid sure won’t be running the show much longer
TheVer on March 16, 2010 at 9:43 AM
Wouldn’t you figure that the Radical, National Socialist Left would in favor of the SS.
(In more ways than one)
Fake8 on March 16, 2010 at 9:44 AM
Enoxo: If President Obama nominates more SC justices, do they not first have to make it through Senate confirmation, which requires 60 votes?
Given that this would be done expressly to ensure that a hypothetically passed healthcare bill would remain law, I doubt that any GOP Senator would vote to allow this.
Scott H on March 16, 2010 at 9:44 AM
That’s old thinking.
Yes, when America was fairly stable, Democrat scum could get away with idiocy like this.
But we have a 10%+ unemployment rate that’s not getting any better. We have exploding entitlement programs.
And the mid-term elections are when the cognizant among us are motivated to get to the polls and the brain dead ACORN registration fraud voters, aren’t as well paid.
There will be blood. The rivers will run red with donkey blood in November, rest assured.
NoDonkey on March 16, 2010 at 9:45 AM
Maybe I’m woefully uninformed, but that is still not a final vote. I believe these people plan to hold a vote on the Senate bill and are trying anything and everything to get people to cave.
LibTired on March 16, 2010 at 9:45 AM
Just a note of support for Greta. When Obama was sworn in, she pivoted to mostly politics right away. She has these long form interviews that have really been informative. I keep hearing speculation that Fox might replace her hour, but I think that’s a mistake. I don’t think she is a conservative, but she has been speaking in that voice for a long time, as far as her questions and comments goes, when it comes to Obama policies. I love when my former Senator (Rick Santorum) is on her show. I do miss the human interest and legal stories sometimes, but I have found this show alot more helpful to our cause than Anderson Cooper and whatever else is on news cable at that hour.
deedledee on March 16, 2010 at 9:45 AM
I don’t have much confidence in the likes of Grahamnesty, or the Hag Twins of Maine.
Enoxo on March 16, 2010 at 9:46 AM
“I’m inclined to believe Stupak is out of the loop. The filthy lying coward and his cronies are courting the extreme left like Kucinich now.”
Every once in a while, even I the eternal sceptic, stand amazed at what people claimn to believe.
Are you really saying that Stupak is against abortion only to play up to the extreme left? Splain it to me please! I didn’t realize that the extreme left was pro-life (other than their own. Kind of sort of like those parents that strap bombs on their little kids and send them to blow up innocent Jews, but would always manage to never wear them themselves)
Don L on March 16, 2010 at 9:47 AM
Three things are certain:
- Ever increasing taxes.
- Decreased quality in health care over time.
- Ever lengthening waiting lists for “free” medical procedures.
Welcome to the rest of the world.
Crux Australis on March 16, 2010 at 9:47 AM
Cut the phone lines! No calls from History this time
TheVer on March 16, 2010 at 9:49 AM
I’m in Bart’s district, and have been since way before he ever entered politics. His district covers the northern part of the Lower Peninsula and all of the Upper Peninsula. It’s a very large district with relatively few people. The 1st District of Michigan is nearly 25,000 square miles with just over 600,000 people.
Before this dust up nobody outside of the district knew who Stupak was, or even cared.
Bart has shown a spine that he has never exhibited before. It would be easy to assume that he would be easily turned, and it would be reasonable to expect that outcome.
But, with all the media exposure Bart has walked himself so far out to the end of the plank that he finds no way back at this time. A change would be to public now to be ignored or explained away.
There have been rumors up here that Stupak has had some thoughts of running for a Senate slot. He can kiss that thought goodbye if he changes his stance now. In fact, a sellout is almost a certain loss for him in the next House run.
The problem Nan has is that the Feds NEVER send anything this way for us and there is little they could offer Stupak that would make any difference in this area.
There are finally a few decent Repubs that may run against him next election. Problem for them is a lack of name recognition.
Yoop on March 16, 2010 at 9:49 AM
I hope Fox doesn’t ax Greta’s show. She’s by far the best reporter on tv that I’ve seen. She’s fair and isn’t a shill for the GOP.
If Fox got rid of her that would be very disappointing. I hope they know better then that.
B Man on March 16, 2010 at 9:52 AM
Three things are certain:
-
Ever increasing taxes.TAXES-
Decreased quality in health care over time.DEATH-
Ever lengthening waiting lists for “free” medical procedures.GARBAGEWelcome to the rest of the world.
Crux Australis on March 16, 2010 at 9:47 AM
tatersalad on March 16, 2010 at 9:53 AM
Enoxo: I’d have faith in Graham not playing to Obama’s tune while amnesty is still unresolved. It’d be an exquisite quid pro quo dilemma.
As for the Maine senators, perhaps I am misremembering, but wasn’t one of them a rebuttal of Obama’s healthcare agenda recently?
And, seriously, if the Democrat legislators are worried about reelection because of a vote that at least some part of their partisan constituency supports, how would Republican legislators justify a ‘yes’ vote on this bill?
That is truly mindboggling.
Scott H on March 16, 2010 at 9:53 AM
He would not be any worse than the 2 yahoos we currently have (Stabenow + Levin) for those lucky enough not to know
TheVer on March 16, 2010 at 9:54 AM
Stupak is my rep. I’ve never voted for the man, but he is making me proud in that he is standing up for what he believes in, and he may get my vote. He is pissing off the left in his constituency but he is making inroads with the right. Stupak isn’t going to lose either way….trust me.
I’m not sure people realize what they are dealing with here. Stupak will not cave….he doesn’t have anything to lose but his values and he will stick to them. Stupak could retire and be done with this now and never have another worry, but he will see it through. He has a different set of values from growing up in a place where there is nowhere to run and hide from your misgivings or mistakes. Everyone knows you and how you operate. No BS. That’s Northern Michigan, that’s Bart whether you like it or not.
Stupak percent of votes:
2000 58%
2002 68%
2004 65%
2006 69%
2008 65%
WelfareWonderland on March 16, 2010 at 10:11 AM
I would argue that we’ve already seen it when he took a comment about Spock-like logic to mean the reporter was mocking his elephantine ears.
highhopes on March 16, 2010 at 10:12 AM
I’m not so sure I see Stupak as a contender for the Senate if he bucks all that union pressure for passage of Obamacare. The same bad people that have elected and re-elected the Levin boys, Stabenow, Granholm, Conyers, and Dingel will not be happy and, of course, in Michigan you can’t be a good little Democrat if the UAW and MEA is against you.
highhopes on March 16, 2010 at 10:22 AM
Ed, we went through this the last time, for all the fandango, he’s a Dem; he’ll support it.
E9RET on March 16, 2010 at 10:22 AM
Dafydd ab Hugh latest on the whip count.
215 No votes.
70 undecided.
146 Yes votes.
Do not despair, we are one vote away from killing this monster. And the movement has been in our favor.
LarryD on March 16, 2010 at 10:27 AM
There was a blog entry at hotair.com that talked about how the government “brand” had been damaged.
I’m sad to say that is true and that George W’s impact on improving that brand ended up being imperceptible.
Having said that…holy crap! Democrats like Pelosi, Reid, Wrangle, Frank, Obama, etc., etc., etc., are coating the brand with layers of radioactive salmonella.
I am really beginning to believe that the Democrats that don’t vote for the health care bill are the only ones that have a chance at keeping their jobs and preserving the little integrity that the Democrats have left.
watson007 on March 16, 2010 at 10:27 AM
DrStock on March 16, 2010 at 8:57 AM
That’s what we’re all really waiting to see: whether the rule of law even exists when Congress wants to ignore it.
They’re playing chicken with us. What will we do if they break the laws blatantly in full view of everybody, flipping us all the bird as they do so?
That’s what we’re all waiting to see.
justincase on March 16, 2010 at 10:28 AM
This is one of the most amazing things to me. How can any Michigan union worker vote for a democrat after the jobs that have been hemmoraged from this state with Democrats in control. It’s almost funny.
WelfareWonderland on March 16, 2010 at 10:49 AM
Those numbers are way off what the pundits are claiming. I hope you are right but am dubious. A stunning rejection of Obamacare would be the death knell for the filthy lying coward in the White House to have any relevance for the remainder of his term. Lame duck status in less than 18 months. For that reason, the final vote will be close.
Everybody simply needs to keep the pressure on and hope/pray for deliverance from this evil enterprise.
highhopes on March 16, 2010 at 10:52 AM
Ok, one question thought, if SCOTUS will “slaughter” the Slaughter rule, what if it doesn’t happen until Stevens decides to “retire” tomorrow and Obama gets to pick the next Progressive on the court and we are now long 5-4.
jaimo on March 16, 2010 at 10:56 AM
sorry for my typo “though”.
What if they really want Slaughter to go to SCOTUS after Stevens retires? Could this be the plan all along? Or, maybe they really want this to go down in flames so when the Repubs win in 2010 they can shove it up their butts until 2012 that they did nothing about healthcare.
jaimo on March 16, 2010 at 11:00 AM
Ever play poker?
If Queen Nancy had the votes the vote would be now!
She is bluffing.
The Rock on March 16, 2010 at 11:02 AM
Crux Australis on March 16, 2010 at 9:47 AM
I’m sure your lefty politicians have all kinds of ready made excuses for their shoddy health care system too.
Democrats are all about recycling.
I already know one – those nasty Republicans aren’t funding our crappy system enough!
NoDonkey on March 16, 2010 at 11:04 AM
Unionism dies hard in Michigan. Up in the Copper Country there are residents who were piss*d at The Company because of things that were done to their unionized grandfathers and fathers in the mines. You can still, today, find them piss*d at The Company, forty years after it ceased to exist.
They still vote how the union would have wanted them to vote, if it still existed. That is the truth.
Yoop on March 16, 2010 at 11:12 AM
I don’t get it either but they do. I know union members that are conservatives and hate what Granholm et. al. have done to Michigan but they go ahead and vote the way the union wants them to vote.
How can any Michigander be happy with the way Granholm has governed? How can anybody be pleased with the liberal policies and anti-business mentality have driven away population every year Granholm has been in office. Taxes are going up and quality of life is going down and yet the unions are keep protecting the very people who should be held to account. It disgusts me to no end that Granholm to this day blames Engler for every single one of her bad decisions. Not unlike the filthy lying coward in the White House who will never accept responsibility.
highhopes on March 16, 2010 at 11:32 AM
Then they deserve what they get if they are living in the 1970s. I saw much the same thing in Greenville when the Electrolux plant closed after 100 years of making appliances. There was a sense of betrayal that “the company” was closing. More importantly, there was an utter defiance in accepting the reality of the situation with individuals being quoted that they were third-generation manufacturing workers and nothing would change that.
highhopes on March 16, 2010 at 11:40 AM
.
Keith’s father has passed away.
News2Use on March 16, 2010 at 11:44 AM
In order to bribe Congresscritters, this ASSumes that after the Slaughter Solution that Congress will be able to pass a damn thing else afterwards.
Any Congresscritter promised a bribe in forthcoming legislation has to know that the next few months will have gridlock as never before.
Sekhmet on March 16, 2010 at 11:58 AM
I’m from the Copper Country and there are still oldtimers around here like that, but they are few and far between nowadays. The thing is unions were useful back when copper mining was happening here. Now there are just small unions in this area that suck away workers wages and show up once a year (maybe) to make sure everyone is toeing the line.
It’s too bad the “company” didn’t clean up after themselves after they left…but that’s a story for another time.
WelfareWonderland on March 16, 2010 at 12:00 PM
If I remember correctly, in his earlier interview with Greta, Stupak alluded to cost containment language in the Senate bill being too weak for the liking of some in the House. It seems to me, that just as House members should be concerned about whether or not Pelosi adds something for them, they also have to be concerned about what she might have added for somebody else. Assuming Pelosi’s talking to congressmen individually or in small groups, how does she keep from putting in something for one guy that is a deal-breaker for another guy? It’s almost like having 3 suspects lying their heads of in isolated interrogation. The odds of something going wrong are very, very high. This disgusting process that they’ve decided to use, “What can I put in the bill for you, honey?” is similarly doomed. When Stupak says, “I have to see the specific language of the bill,” that’s part of what he’s talking about. If he was concerned about cost containment before, how porktacular will the “reconciliation” bill be, once Pelosi got it fully loaded with bribes?
smellthecoffee on March 16, 2010 at 12:01 PM
Remember a thread awhile back, that laid out the cap, and trade? Waxman has it so that all the middle states will be supporting the east, and west coast states. Because of their liberalism, and running their states into the ground, we get the honor of supporting, and sustaining them, for what they’ve done to destroy these states. So no. A lot do not think outside their state, but always have their hands out to other states, waiting for their entitlements.
capejasmine on March 16, 2010 at 12:06 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »