and 41 Democrats in the House have already signed a letter to that effect — if Stupak remains in the bill, then these 41 Democrats will kill the bill by joining with the Republicans to kill it.

See: http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aZVknY_riTJU

and

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/67099-liberals-threaten-to-sink-health-bill-over-abortion

and

http://www.redstate.com/dan_perrin/2009/11/11/pro-abortion-house-dems-solidify-opposition-to-conference-report-with-stupak-amendment/

It’s just a matter of them coming up with the right money laundering scheme in order to give the pro-life D’s enough cover to vote yay. Will they be able to come up with something to fool the average voter? Who knows.

If democrats weren’t so stooooopid, they would just give up the abortion coverage idea and just try to amend it if they ever make their way back to power after 2010 and 2012. If they refuse to let it go, Obamacare will suffer the same fate as a fetus in Planned Parenthood.

If the Democrats are forced to march ahead without abortions being paid for by taxpayers they will simply come back for it later.

This is their timeless strategy of incrementalism. And it’s a strategy that always defeats the stupid party.

Rather than oppose a Democrat bill outright the GOP ALWAYS seeks to trim its excess thus conceding to the Democrats that their starting position is ultimately correct. The Democrats then proceed to negotiate for half of their ultimate goal knowing that they will eventually get the other half through subsequent legislation.

They will employ the same strategy against the GOP on health care “reform” and that is why the entire bill must be opposed.

There is sufficient grounds to oppose it in its entirety including its unconstitutionality, the massive taxation and regulation imposed, the mandates, the advance of socialism, et al.

You’re absolutely correct Mike, we can’t get bogged down in fights over this or that provision and that’s exactly what I told Mitch McConnell’s staffer when I called today.

BIG PICTURE everyone, BIG PICTURE.

dead

Do not underestimate the power to stop it in the Senate, a completely different situation than the House.

so for that, the progressives leadership in the house could compromise with the anti-abortion part of the party in order to get there goals. It’s well in the house but of course the Senate has a easier way to kill off such nonsense. I counting on Coborn to read this bill to death.

I’m hoping not. It’s less likely to happen in the House, anyway, lest the lefties from commie districts want to get primaried by more orthodox marxists in the next go-around.

We need only one in the Senate to force the Dems to accept Stupak.

If they do not accept it, the bill fails.

If they do accept it, do you really think they will roll over and play dead, given what has happened to Senator McCaskill

If Stupak passes in the Senate, then removing it in reconciliation is weakened but not dead by a long shot. They can do just about anything with the bill in reconciliation. For example (and I am making up numbers here), if the House budgets $200 million and the Senate budgets $150 million in a bill, then quite frequently the reconciliation bill comes in at something like $250 million, not $175 million like you would think.

As a Missourian (perhaps you are, too, it sounds), I obviously see plenty of Claire. She’s blue, with a slight twinge of red…every once in a while she throws me for a loop by supporting something that I support. I wouldn’t call her centrist, but she’s also miles from being a clone of Chuckie Schumer or (The) Dick Durbin.

And as you may know, Missouri is a deep red state outside of urban St. Louis and Kansas City. The rural areas generally override the deep blue inner city core*. Missouri broke its streak as a bellweather in 2008 by voting narrowly for McCain over Bambi. There was a bit more blue on the electoral map in 2008, but I attribute that to the overall success of President Pantywaist more than an overall trend to the left.

If McCaskill was a hard-core leftist like those I mentioned above, she would not have been elected. MO is simply too red for that.

Like you, I have little sympathy for her. She made her own bed on this one.

And she’s fun to pick on via Twitter…

——
* - the narrow exception is/are the university towns/counties around Columbia and Springfield, yet the congressional district that includes Boone County still elected Blaine Luetkemeyer to replace what’s-his-name who lost to Jay Nixon…I pin that on Sarah Steelman as much as anything/anyone.

As a Missourian (perhaps you are, too, it sounds), I obviously see plenty of Claire. She’s blue, with a slight twinge of red…every once in a while she throws me for a loop by supporting something that I support. I wouldn’t call her centrist, but she’s also miles from being a clone of Chuckie Schumer or (The) Dick Durbin.

And as you may know, Missouri is a deep red state outside of urban St. Louis and Kansas City. The rural areas generally override the deep blue inner city core*. Missouri broke its streak as a bellweather in 2008 by voting narrowly for McCain over Bambi. There was a bit more blue on the electoral map in 2008, but I attribute that to the overall success of President Pantywaist more than an overall trend to the left.

If McCaskill was a hard-core leftist like those I mentioned above, she would not have been elected. MO is simply too red for that.

Like you, I have little sympathy for her. She made her own bed on this one.

——
* - the narrow exception is/are the university towns/counties around Columbia and Springfield, yet the congressional district that includes Boone County still elected Blaine Luetkemeyer to replace what’s-his-name who lost to Jay Nixon…I pin that on Sarah Steelman as much as anything/anyone.

Wasn’t this the woman who said the McCain-Palin ticket wanted to put raped women in jail for seeking an abortion?

This does not appear to be much of a stretch for this woman.

are silently sitting quietly, with resolve, not vowing to vote against it right after they voted for it — meaning the Dems have a serious problem

A typical Grammar-nazi, he eats shoots and leaves. Just like a panda bear in a sentence fragment.

and the truth about the title is that it fit on two lines, not three, so yes, grammar suffered, so art and (watch out I am going to make up a word) interestingness can live

pro-lifers in MO will point that excellent legal analysis out to her — but she has made her bed now and exposed herself to her state

I think I see a 30 second ad coming…

Abortion

Spending — do you remember what happened to the doc fix in the U.S. Senate where 13 Dems voted against cloture on the motion to proceed and the bill died INSTANTLY?

The public option — moveon.org vs. the moderates?

Immigration — do you enforce the ban on illegal immigrants getting the benies?

Taxes — the tax structure between the house and senate version is completely and irreconcilably different

being only the beginning is exactly right –

add

Guns and Immigration, for starters

I love choices - I make them all day long. And, for what it’s worth, I think you all people should be able to choose an abortion or not - I just think there ought to be stiff jailtime for anyone who chooses to participate in them.

The thing is, pro-aborts will do anything possible to avoid using the word abortion. I’m fine with accepting the term “anti-abortion” (as this correctly describes me) if they will accept the moniker, “pro-abortion”. But, they don’t like that because it puts the focus on what it is they’re supporting, which isn’t too palatable to the average person.

Do you automatically think that someone who describes himself as “pro-gun” is a firearm owner and not someone who may just support an American’s right to own a gun? Do you think that person takes offense to being called “pro-gun”? Would he much prefer to describe themselves as “pro-2nd amendment rights”? That’s idiotic and unnecessary.

The thing is, pro-aborts know they support legalized killing. If they really thought that getting an abortion carried the same moral weight as getting a tooth pulled, there would be no reason for them to hide behind such woefully vague and deceitful descriptors such as “choice”.