It’s hard not to read into this that he could vote yes on the Senate bill.
Rep. Bart Stupak said he expects to resume talks with House leaders this week in a quest for wording that would impose no new limits on abortion rights but also would not allow use of federal money for the procedure.
“I’m more optimistic than I was a week ago,” Stupak said in an interview between meetings with constituents in his northern Michigan district. He was hosting a town hall meeting Monday night at a local high school.
Okay Rep. Stupak, which is it? Either
- You will vote for the Senate bill as is and keep your fingers crossed that a bunch of known liars keep their promises, or
- You will agree to vote for the Senate bill with your amendment added back on and then let it go back to the Senate for a new vote.
There is a BIG difference between those two positions, so if you try to say they are equivalent you are full of baloney.
Neil Stevens
Moe Lane
Caleb Howe
Erick Erickson
Dan McLaughlin
Dan Spencer
"We"???? You got a mouse in your pocket?
mbecker908 (Diary) Monday, March 8th at 9:58PM EDT (link)I’ve said from day one that Stupak would vote as he was told to. He is more “pro-government” than he is “pro-life”.
Aw heck, he’s not pro-life at all. He’s a Democrat. Pro-life Democrat == Jewish Nazi.
Stupak is an odd bird, I wouldn't dismiss him so easily
JSobieski (Diary) Monday, March 8th at 10:09PM EDT (link)His position has been consistent throughout this process, and he hasn’t given anyone any reason to think he will suddenly flip.
Stupak genuinely supports the House Bill and has always stated that he (1) will not vote for the Senate bill and (2) is eager to talk and iron out the issue so that HCR can pass.
I don’t see anything new here, which means he remains the one person who got Pelosi to back down on an HCR issue.
Stupak is from the upper penninsula of Michigan, which is kind of like Alaska only without the densely populated areas. I don’t think you can pressure the guy, so the question is whether he is smart enough not to play the role of sucker.
He is left of his district, but UPers don’t respect a wuss, so however this ends up, he cannot appear to cave.
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
"I don’t see anything new here" Really?
bk (Diary) Monday, March 8th at 10:13PM EDT (link)See my reply below. Any solution that does not involve amending and ping-ponging it means he might vote for the Senate bill.
He HAD been consistent until now it seems to me.
Has he ever said that we could vote for the Senate bill? NO. He has always said that he is willing to engage in a discussion of proposed language that could satisfy both sides
JSobieski (Diary) Monday, March 8th at 10:22PM EDT (link)I would limit your attention to actual quotes of his. Reporters (and bloggers) jump to all sorts of conclusions based on his actions because they don’t understand his point of view.
He has consistently stated that he could not vote in support of the Senate bill. Nothing I have seen anywhere to date changes that fact.
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
Someone needs to ask him whether he's talking about an amendment or some other route
bk (Diary) Monday, March 8th at 10:32PM EDT (link)If he’s talking about discussing language for an abortion amendment to the Senate bill and that he won’t vote for the Senate bill unless that amendment passes, then he has been consistent.
If he is talking about *anything* other than that, then he is saying that there are circumstances which would involve him voting for the Senate bill.
Do you agree that one of those two has to be the case?
Would you also agree that there is no way that Pelosi or Hoyer will allow the bill to be amended and sent back to the Senate, in which case reconciliation becomes moot and the bill dies for lack of cloture?
I agree with you. As noted in some other comments, Stupak is playing somewhat coy to the procedural reality
JSobieski (Diary) Monday, March 8th at 10:38PM EDT (link)He has never said that he would be willing to pass the Senate bill. He has said that he would vote against the Senate bill. When talking about the abortion issue, he consistently uses the term “language” (ie the end goal is not negotiable, but the particular words to get to that outcome are).
I don’t think Obama will be able to get to mutually acceptable statutory language.
I don’t think Stupak is an idiot.
So far. his precise words are in support of the position we want him to take. Its only phrases like “more optimistic” that scare the hell out of us.
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
What?! Dude, he flipped last time. nt
joayn (Diary) Tuesday, March 9th at 2:17AM EDT (link)America is an idea; a noble idea that essentially boils down to the shocking belief that the masses are in fact not asses. John Nolte
The House bill included the Stupak language
JSobieski (Diary) Tuesday, March 9th at 8:13AM EDT (link)Stupak does support the House bill which includes a public option.
So he didn’t “flip” last time, he flipped Pelosi.
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
OK so I fall somewhere between you and Dan Perrin on the HCR scale :-)
bk (Diary) Monday, March 8th at 10:11PM EDT (link)I was hoping Stupak was honest about not voting for the Senate bill, but if he goes for any sort of “fix” other than “amend it and send it back to the Senate” then we need to grab the Vaseline before ObamaCare starts rationing that too.
Stock up now. It'll be a great online business. nt
mbecker908 (Diary) Monday, March 8th at 10:21PM EDT (link)Lets hope not. There are reasons to be optimistic--reasons beyond the Stupak 12
JSobieski (Diary) Monday, March 8th at 10:23PM EDT (link)nt
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
Our King Of Poland
Ausonius (Diary) Monday, March 8th at 10:26PM EDT (link)certainly is an expert on Stupak, and Yooper politics.
However, I cannot help thinking constantly: Stupak is a DEMOCRAT.
He will cave in: he will vote for Hell-th Care.
IF the man had any sense, any moral sense, he would not be a Dem. This is the problem with the oxymoron “Conservative Democrat.”
I hope Stupak will stop Hell-th Care, but I suspect no, he will join the Pelosi Party, find some Lard from the Pork Barrel to salve his soul, and hop on the wagon as it rolls toward the cliff.
Ausonius: 310-395 A.D. Teacher, Poet, Consul, General, Farmer.
Personal Tutor to the future St. Paulinus of Nola and to young Gratian, heir to the throne during the turbulent final years of the Western Roman Empire. When his former student Gratian was assassinated, Ausonius threw up his hands and retired to his farm in Gaul. Rome was captured by barbarians 14 years after his death.
Cato@rock.com
AND…Know Your Czars…Before They Hit BIG BRObama’s Unemployment Line in November: http://www.czarcards.us/
Look at the actual language of the Stupak Amendment
JSobieski (Diary) Monday, March 8th at 10:33PM EDT (link)http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15284081/Stupak-Amendment-to-HR-3962-Rev-108
I don’t think Obama will be able to even reach a language accommodation with Stupak, much less convince Stupak to “trust him” and pass the Senate bill.
Stupak is a dem and a liberal dem at that, but he has held up far better than other “pro-life” democrats, so he deserves some credit
P.S. I am no expert on Stupak, but he is far better than our two Senators.
P.P.S. The UP really is an odd place
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
exactly, which is why the article at the top of the thread makes me nervous
bk (Diary) Monday, March 8th at 10:41PM EDT (link)“I don’t think Obama will be able to even reach a language accommodation with Stupak…”
Obama, Pelosi, NARAL, etc. have been saying that the language in the Senate bill amounts to “Stupak Lite”. They claim that his wording relegated women to back-alley coat-hanger butchers, whereas the Senate language protects abortion “rights” and (wink wink) blocks use of federal dollars for abortions.
So what is there to discuss? Are they trying to come up with a “lighter than Stupak I but not quite as light as Senate I” compromise? And even more importantly, what form does it take – an amendment or something else?
Have you read the Senate bill?
JSobieski (Diary) Monday, March 8th at 10:52PM EDT (link)Not only does it permit individual subsidies to go to insurance premiums that cover abortions, but it includes money for abortions outside the context of an individual insurance policy.
In contrast, the Stupak language prohibits federal money from even subsidizing a policy that covers abortion.
They call is Stupak-lite because they want to characterize the bill in the most favorable way possible.
When have Obama, Pelosi, or NARAL told the truth about anything, much less the highest sacrament of liberalism.
I have every confidence that Stupak will not go for anything that allows a government subsidy to be applied to a policy that covers an abortion.
Far more likely in my view that he is procedurally suckered.
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
I agree 100% that the Dems are lying about the Senate language
bk (Diary) Monday, March 8th at 10:58PM EDT (link)By engaging in whatever these negotiations are, it seems they are admitting to lying, which Dems virtually never do.
It’s also an admission that they don’t have the votes without Stupak, which is good news, but it also means they think there’s a way to flip him. Let’s hope not.
A compare/contrast of the House and Senate bills on abortion funding
JSobieski (Diary) Monday, March 8th at 10:59PM EDT (link)http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/HouseLetteronAbortionProvisions.html
To call the Senate bill Stupak-lite is clearly not credible.
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
The language does not matter
GJ Merits (Diary) Tuesday, March 9th at 11:10AM EDT (link)And Stupak knows this. Abortion is a fig leaf. Stupak is well aware, as are the pro-life groups, that government controlled healthcare will lead to federally funded abortion somewhere down the road. Period.
They are all being disingenuous and we have been here before:
http://www.redstate.com/gman2008/2010/03/09/stupak-the-gop-and-pro-life-groups-the-presidents-useful-idiots/
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents….James Madison
If you want to go fast – go alone. If you want to go far – go together.
To win against tyranny you must embrace not only novel solutions, but fear of the unknown as well.
Actually language always matters --- if it didn't, the passage of both bills means that Obama could have signed HCR before Christmas
JSobieski (Diary) Tuesday, March 9th at 11:54AM EDT (link)In terms of tactics/strategy, language is all we have (I agree with the substance that government healthcare means abortion funding is almost inevitable).
Your strategic analysis ignores the fact that there are (Stupak among them) pro-life libs who don’t understand the danger of big government, which is why they are pro-life libs. Dogs bark, cats meow, and pro-life libs are blind to the danger of big government.
The Stupak amendment is one of the big reasons why HCR wasn’t passed many months ago, and all the amendment is is a bunch of words—language if you will.
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
Sounds a lot like Ben Nelson
Menlo (Diary) Monday, March 8th at 10:48PM EDT (link)That sounds almost exactly like what he was saying the day before he came to his “compromise” with Ma’am Boxer.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter