The American Spectator

Edmund Dantes| 3.5.10 @ 4:02PM

It suggests to me that they are finding a face-saving gesture for voting for the ball even though it violates their 'consciences', and I use the term loosely. They're more afraid of bucking Obama and Pelosi than they are of the wrath of their constituents. We will see in November if their fears are misplaced.

Floyd Looney| 3.5.10 @ 4:17PM

There will be no separate legislation. It will never get a vote if there is. The House vote on the Senate bill is the FINAL vote. Then every one of us will fund abortion through insurance policies that we are mandated to buy. Socialism will have cometh and the fall of freedom is nigh.

Tim| 3.5.10 @ 4:29PM

Baal is unlikely to compromise on this.

Siegfried X| 3.5.10 @ 5:52PM

"The House vote on the Senate bill is the FINAL vote. "

Exactly. Reconciliation was always just a fantasy, a shiny object designed to get the House Republicans to cave in and vote for the Senate bill.

ZerObama| 3.5.10 @ 10:18PM

Siegfried, I told you a month ago Dick Morris said that ObamaCare was still alive and you strongly disagreed with me, remember? You ridiculed Morris for being clueless, too.

Who's REALLY the clueless one?

Cliff| 3.5.10 @ 11:03PM

Actually, the D's are clueless. No program of this size has even come close REMOTELY to passing on a party line vote like this, particularly when it's polling this badly. And nothing like the Scott Brown election has ever happened and CERTAINLY nothing like it has ever been ignored.

You can't really blame him for thinking that. Nobody that knows anything about political history thought it would survive after Scott Brown.

I'm still a bit bedazzled by it. It'll be awfully interesting to see what happens next.

ZerObama | 3.6.10 @ 12:07AM

Correction: Only the naive believed ObamaCare was dead after Brown's election.

We underestimate Liberals' power-mad megalomania at our own peril. I don't and I never will.

Siegfried X| 3.6.10 @ 8:46AM

I have consistently said that health care might pass, and, disagreeing with TAS writers, that Pelosi has 255 potential votes, not 220.

However I rarely agree with Morris and have said that most of the Democratic talk about reconciliation is nonsense. I was proven correct in that the Dems have basically given up on reconciliation, and now say that the House must simply pass the Senate bill FIRST, something they swore they'd never do. Democrats are now admitting that reconciliation isn't a magic wand, and it can only change a few budget-related items.

ZerObama| 3.6.10 @ 1:40PM

You're splitting hairs. You were proven WRONG that ObamaCare was dead--Dick Morris was right.

Now, man up and admit it. Geez.

Siegfried X| 3.5.10 @ 5:53PM

I meant the House Democrats, to trick them into voting for the Senate bill which they swore not to.

Tim Williams| 3.5.10 @ 6:34PM

I’m afraid I don’t quite share your confidence that this maneuver can’t work. I can imagine two scenarios in which it would work.

First, I could imagine separate legislation pertaining to funding of abortions that might be crafted in such a way as to apply to any future bills, passed in advance of a House vote on the current Senate bill. Such legislation could pass both houses with quite a few Republican votes, as did the original Stupak amendment. With pro-life protections, the “Stupak 12” could vote in good conscience for the Senate bill.

Second, Republicans could vote against this new bill - remember, at the time of the Stupak Amendment, some were condemning Republicans who voted in favor, since this amendment got the whole monstrous bill over the top for passage. This time, if pro-life Republicans of principle vote against such a bill as a purely cynical vote to stop Obamacare, isn’t there a risk of the “pro-life Democrats” voting for the Senate bill as a backlash against “Republican hypocrisy.” In exchange, they would likely get some sort of promise to re-introduce the pro-life bill after Obamacare is law – a fig leaf to show they stood up for their own principles. They would have their pro-life cover, the Republicans would be portrayed as obstructionists with no principles.

I hope I am not over-thinking this thing.

Siegfried X| 3.5.10 @ 6:51PM

"might be crafted in such a way as to apply to any future bills"

They can't do that. Last bill passed always "wins". Today's congress cannot prevent tomorrow's congress from changing legislation.

The thing is that reconciliation really won't matter anyway. The Democrats are saying that the FIRST STEP would be the House approving the Senate bill. As soon as that happened, ObamaCare would become the law of the land, even if reconciliation later failed.

Tim Williams| 3.6.10 @ 12:52AM

Siegfried X -

Yes, of course any law passed now could be rolled back later. All I meant is that it would be language generalized to prohibit Federal funding of abortion, not necessarily tied specifically to this bill. Also, try to get that vote before the House vote on the Senate bill. It would have nothing to do with reconciliation. It would be a way to force Republicans to pave the way for House passage of Obamacare.

Bii from WV| 3.6.10 @ 8:23AM

And after Stupak is stupid enough to vote for this bill what do Obama and the Democrats do to it afterward? No one could be that stupid to TRUST these people!

MRD

MRD

JP| 3.6.10 @ 11:25AM

I think most people don't understand that one of the versions must be passed as by one of the houses of congress -as, no amendments. Until that occurs, nothing will go forward. Stupak and Pelosi can talk about future amendments all they want to, but until either the House or Senate passes something this process is frozen.

Yosemeti Sam| 3.6.10 @ 12:40PM

Pussyfooting Stupak & like-minded Democrat colleagues.

Were their abortion 'lines in the sand' drawn
near a beach shore?

Where/what is the supposed Pelosi/Dingy/BHO-inspired language 'latitude' on abortion funding - to dither about?

If ever there were a time to vote your CONSCIENCE; to man up on behalf of the utterly defenseless - it's time is now. Are thee men or mice?

Enough of this - oh, I'm in a minefield; careful, careful.

Phooey!

Wethal| 3.6.10 @ 1:53PM

Politico reports that the Dems and White House are negotiating with the Catholic bishops. The bishops don't like the Senate language on abortion (they see it for the accounting gimmick that it is.) Since Stupak is a policy matter, and can't be part of reconciliation, the Dems are trying to promise there will [some day soon] be a separate amendment bill passed to change the Senate abortion language. The exact language has yet to be worked out. Given how many liberal, pro-abortion Dems in the Senate there are, Harry would have trouble getting to 60 (assuming he doesn't get GOP help).

The National Right to Life Committee sees that the bishops are being set up as political cover for the House to vote for the Senate bill.

Margie| 3.6.10 @ 11:29PM

Then we need to urgently pray. Pray that the bishops see it for what it is and take NO part.