search
top

Spoiling

Eric is a little understandably frustrated the GOP could have had Pelosi’s health care bill dead as a doornail if they had just not floated the Stupak Amendment to restrict abortion coverage in the bill. By voting for Stupak, the GOP allowed the Dems to pick up a number of key votes they needed in order to pass. I also wonder whether Stupak was strategically smart for the purpose of stopping Pelosicare, but I’m also aware that it’s not a guarantee the bill would have been stopped, and that the GOP has to consider what pro-life voters are going to think.

It’s a tough position for the GOP to be in. Imagine if there had been an assault weapons ban attached to the health care bill? Would we have forgiven the GOP for just letting it happen? Probably not. The GOP did what it had to do to placate an important constituency that votes in large numbers. I’m sympathetic to arguments that they could have used the abortion issue to kill health care entirely, possibly by voting “present” on the bill. But can you imagine the backlash if that had happened, and Pelosi managed to pick up the votes for passage anyway? Pelosi barely passed this bill, but I wouldn’t make the mistake of believing she didn’t have several other Blue Dog Dems who were willing to switch their votes to yes if needed. She got as many votes as she needed to pass, and then let the other Blue Dogs save their seats by voting no.

I am with Eric on the abortion issue, as it does not rank that high on my list of issues, and I don’t advocate it being illegal. But I’m also aware it’s a powerful issue for driving votes. While neither Bitter nor I are anti-abortion activists, my anti-gun Congressman, Patrick Murphy, voted in favor of Pelosicare and against the Stupak Amendment, while claiming to be a good Catholic. Come election time, I will have no compunction about going around to the catholic churches in the neighborhoods during mass, and doing lit drops to let people know how Murphy voted.¬†Any chair in a bar fight.

14 Responses to “Spoiling”

  1. Jeff says:

    Two things:
    -Support for the Stupak amendment isn’t to blame for Pelosicare passing.
    -Had there been an AWB in the bill, and Republicans squashed it like they squashed federally funded abortions, would we blame them for Pelosicare passing? I imagine we’d be pretty glad we didn’t get ugly weapons banned.

  2. I think it’s interesting that there’s been a bit of an anti-social conservative vibe going around.

    Nice to see that the republicans will kow tow to a socially conservative constituency to preserve their 100% pro-life rating, but make it much more likely that PelosiCare passes.

    DrewM over at AoSHQ has this to say about the deal:

    …this is horrible strategy. The NRLC should have been adults about this. They are going to save this amendment and ensure final passage. Then it’s going to get struck in conference and a chance to kill this will have been lost.

    Abortion is either no big deal (as Democrats are always telling us) or it is a big deal (as Republicans are always telling us). If the Repubs had only voted ‘present’, we would have found out.

    Instead, we’ll vote against abortion, get those provisions struck in committee, and PelosiCare will get passed.

  3. Arnie says:

    We may all be missing the real point here. Look, I am as pro-life as anyone, but having a pro-life amendment attached to an unconstitutional bill doesn’t make it any less unconstitutional. It’s still UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Federally mandating that every free, private citizen must buy health insurance against their will or be fined, even jailed?! This is absbolutely none of the U.S goverment’s business! This intrusion in our private lives is absolutely unconstitutional! Our Founding Fathers killed redcoats for such usurpation and tyranny! Gentlemen, this is why they gave us the 2nd Amendment. I encourage all (pro-life and pro-abortion) to avail themselves of its provisions – before it is too late!

  4. Sebastian says:

    Arnie,

    I agree with you that it ought to be unconstitutional, but under current law it isn’t. Unless you can convince the courts to change their current interpretation of the constitution, saying it’s unconstitutional doesn’t really mean anything.

  5. Hank Archer says:

    Isn’t Stupak a Democrat? How do the REpublican’s get the blame for him offering an amendment?

  6. Sebastian says:

    He is. But there’s some who believe the Republicans should have not voted on the amendment so the Democrats couldn’t have cover when it comes to abortion, and thus the bill would have had less of a chance of passing.

  7. Jeff says:

    The more we fight about this, the more the libs divide us.

    Had abortion funding remained in the bill, it would likely have still gone through, even if they had to wait a couple of weeks to redo stuff and vote.

    Anybody notice the Lisbon Treaty over in Europe? These government supremacists will continue to vote for this garbage over and over until it gets passed.

  8. Arnie says:

    Dear Sebastian, I understand the present reality and appreciate your infinite patience to work within the “system” to win the right while still keeping the peace. I pray fervently that your efforts succeed, I truly do. My understanding of history is that our Founders exhibited the same patience – “Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed (Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence).”. Our Confederate cousins would have been wise to have patiently waited to see what Lincoln and his radical Republicans in Congress actually would have done before seceding; they may have found them amenable to a compromise that would have averted their war for independence while yet preserving State sovereignty, and allowed slavery to expire on its own due to economic forces and Christian conscience as both Lincoln and Lee had hoped. But as our Founders discovered, patience is not always rewarded, and it is always best to be prepared for the worst. Hence, they gave us the 2nd Amendment.
    As far as declaring a law to be unconstitutional, I am aware of the present convention that allows the Supreme Court to be the “final arbiter” of constitutionality, but that convention is itself unconstitutional and frankly, dangerous, as both Jefferson and Madison warned. I will right here pledge to give up all my militia arsenal to ANYONE who can quote Article, section, and paragraph where the Constitution of the United States ENUMERATES a power of the Supreme Court to declare a law of of Congress constitutional or unconstitutional! If anyone can, his reward will be quite substantial! If no one can, then the 10th Amendment places that power in the hands of the States and the people thereof. Both Jefferson and Madison (the Father of our Constitution) proclaimed that legal fact in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, as did Vice-President John C.Calhoun decades later during the Nullification Affair. John Taylor of Caroline proved (in my mind, at least) this legal theory in his book “New Views of the Constitution” written in 1823. Marbury vs Madison was a radical judicial aggrandizement that was repeated only once over the next sixty years. Even Lincoln ignored the Taney Court’s declarations of his unconstitutional acts regarding habeus corpus, shutting down the press, and jailing editors and free speech advocates. Article 1, section 1, para.1, sentence one prohibits the Supreme Court from ever making ANY laws!!! So, ideally speaking, of course, why do we wait for a FEDERAL court to declare a FEDERAL law unconstitutional? That is akin to letting the fox’s cubs determine when it’s wrong for the fox to be in the hen house, or leaving it to King George III to determine if Parliament’s tax laws had violated the Colonial Charters!
    It’s utter madness! Look, I understand the political reality, and am willing to give time to our public SERVANTS to repent of their treason and start obeying their oaths to the Constitution (esp.the 10th Amendment). But we are fools if we do not prepare for the worst. Jefferson continued in the Declaration: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations (TARP, Bailouts, GM takeover, Health insurance takeover, Cap and (Tax) Trade, wealth redistribution and proposed AWB, etc. Etc.)…evinces a DESIGN to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to THROW OFF such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security (all caps mine).” Please tell me what DESIGN these actions of our recent government portend to you!
    I am no rebel – I do believe our government is. They have rebelled against the Constitution and betrayed their oath to the same. I may not have the credibility to convince our servants of the unconstitutionality of a law or to persuade them to desist. But I can sure as heck determine for myself (as can any who will read the precious document versus the blasted law in question – good heavens, they won’t even read their own law!) what is unconstitutional and prepare my militia arms for what our Founding Fathers called “acquiescing in the Necessity, enemies in war, in peace, Friends.” Is our government’s “design” to be our SERVANT, or our MASTER? Like you, Sebastian, I lobby and pray for the former, but I PREPARE for the latter!
    I’ve said enough.
    With greatest respect,
    Arnie

  9. Arnie says:

    Does anyone know: do foxes have cubs, or puppies? Puppies sounds too tame, but I am now thinking cubs are for bears and Chicago fans only. Anyway, y,all know what I meant.
    Arnie

  10. Arnie says:

    This is embarrassing, but: I said fox’s cubs;I think I should have said puppies? Sorry.

  11. Sebastian says:

    There are worse mistakes to make than the ones which few will see. I don’t know the right terminology either, off the top of my head.

  12. Diomed says:

    Fox young are called kits, though apparently pup is also used.

  13. Arnie says:

    Thanks, Diomed. Kits! Who’d have thought that? Sounds like a litter a cats.

  14. Arnie says:

    Thanks, Diomed. Kits! Who’d have thought that? Sounds like a litter of cats.

top