Much as I dislike anything that wins votes for the Democratic
health care bill, I agree with Bill McGurn's
take on how Republicans needed to react to the Stupak
amendment:
Now, some believe Republicans should have voted "present" on
the Stupak amendment, on the grounds that the worse they could
make the bill, the harder for Speaker Pelosi to get the magic
218 votes. That's pretty short-sighted, for several reasons.
For one thing, in September all but a few Republican House
members signed a letter to Speaker Pelosi demanding such a
vote. Had Republicans defeated a pro-life amendment they had
asked for, they would have paid a dear price for their
cynicism.
For another, it's not even clear it would have worked. The
Stupak alliance of Democrats was a broad one, from liberals
like Minnesota's Jim Oberstar to conservatives like
Mississippi's Gene Taylor. The danger of the cynical GOP
strategy is that it could easily have backfired, freeing up
Democrats to give Mrs. Pelosi her victory-and putting
Republicans in the awkward position of being unable to press
for funding restrictions they had explicitly defeated.
I don't, however, agree that the "Planned Parenthood wing" of the
Democratic Party is too weak to impose its will on the health
care bill at some point. But that points to another reason it was
correct for Republicans to vote for the amendment: it might have
made short-term passage more likely, but it will complicate the
bill's long-term prospects.
