November 09, 2009

11/9: Victory Comes At A Steep Price

Although a few liberal bloggers celebrated the passage of the House health care reform bill late Saturday night, most were in a sour mood, thanks to the passage of Rep. Bart Stupak's (D-MI) amendment "barring any insurance plan that is purchased with government subsidies from covering abortions." One lefty blogger called it "the Stupak Wire Coat Hanger Amendment." Another complained: "There is no health care bill worth supporting that sells out women's civil rights." Bloggers are directing special criticism at the 23 Dems who voted in favor of the Stupak amendment and then proceeded to vote against the final bill.

Although conservative bloggers are angry at Rep. Anh Cao (R-LA) for being the only GOPer to vote in favor of the bill, they're still optimistic that health care reform will stall in the Senate. Allahpundit writes: "Take heart, righties: [Senate Maj. Leader Harry] Reid is incompetent, which makes the likelihood of 60 votes in the Senate, especially after a vote this narrow, very slim indeed."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Lange, Scarecrow, Benen, Lemos) are blasting Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) for reiterating his pledge to filibuster a health care reform bill that includes a public option. One blogger thinks "[it's] time for reconciliation," but another isn't sure that reconciliation will work.
• RedState editor Erick Erickson is thrilled that the Club for Growth has endorsed FL SEN candidate Marco Rubio (R).

HOUSE HEALTH CARE REFORM BILL: Hooray?

A few liberal bloggers are celebrating the passage of the House health care reform bill:

• MyDD's Charles Lemos: "There are no words that can adequately express this moment. From the bottom of my heart thank you. Today we take the first step towards a more egalitarian, fairer, more sustainable America."
• Balloon Juice's DougJ: "Now that it's through the House, I can't imagine that the Senate will drop the ball. We're going to have a bill. No doubt it will fail to 'bend the health care price curve' to Fred Hiatt's and Ruth Marcus's satisfaction. And no [doubt] it will be widely heralded as good news for conservatives. But getting access to health care for 30 million Americans matters a hell of a lot more than any of that."

However, most liberal bloggers have a sour taste in their mouths due to the passage of the Stupak amendment:

• Firedoglake's Knoxville: "[T]he Stupak Amendment rips a stunning defeat out of the jaws of what should have been a Democratic victory. How many of you saw this coming? I sure didn't. The Democratic Party leadership betrayed us all."
• Firedoglake's David Dayen: "I think the price of passage was extremely steep, and should not be tolerated. If Barack Obama indeed said he would work to take this language out in conference he should be held to that."
• The Huffington Post's Taylor Marsh: "There is no health care bill worth supporting that sells out women's civil rights. [...] Progressives in the House should have killed the bill. [...] It's up to the Senate now and the conference to strip Stupak out, with help from Pres. Obama, of course. He will help, right?"
• BooMan: "The bill passed the House with 220 votes (218 votes were required). That leaves us no room to improve the bill in Conference. We got a single Republican vote, from Joseph Cao of New Orleans. Cao was satisfied by the Stupak Amendment, but his vote will disappear if that language is stripped out in Conference. So, we have two votes to spare. Want a stronger public option? Forget it. Any small change to this deal will probably kill the effort to pass this under regular order. I give [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi credit for winning, once again, but she just barely made it. She did what she had to do, but it certainly wasn't pleasant. The combination of her dropping a robust public option pre-Conference and allowing an anti-choice amendment to pass created an extremely bitter brew. The narrowness of the vote undermines the gains we might expect from the jolt of momentum we gain from passing this crappy legislation."

HOUSE HEALTH CARE REFORM BILL II: This Thing Ain't Over

Although conservative bloggers are disappointed that the bill passed the House, they're hopeful that health care reform will stall in the Senate:

• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Take heart, righties: Reid is incompetent, which makes the likelihood of 60 votes in the Senate, especially after a vote this narrow, very slim indeed."
• NRO's Rich Lowry: "Passage in the House definitely creates more pressure on Reid to get it done, but the slender margin -- despite the size of the Democratic majority in the House and all the arm-twisting and deal-making (what did Cao get?) -- has to make Senate moderates even more nervous. There's a long string yet to be played out here, and it's still likely to stretch into next year, by which time Pelosi's historic accomplishment of November 7 may look foolish."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "While pro-choice Democrats voted for the bill tonight to keep the process moving forward, they did so under the assumption that they could strip [the Stupak amendment] from the bill once the House goes into negotiations with the Senate. If the measure gets stripped, suddenly there's a risk of pro-life Democrats dropping their support of the final bill. And considering that the measure only passed by five votes, Nancy Pelosi cannot afford to shed more than a handful of members. [...] And of course, all of this assumes that some sort of bill passes the Senate. Yet if it was this heavy of a lift in the House -- where it's supposed to be easy for the majority party to ram things through -- it suddenly looks like a daunting task to get to 60 votes in the Senate."
• NRO's Yuval Levin: "Pelosi was able to let 39 of her members avoid voting for this monstrosity, and so to leave them able to tell their voters they were not part of it. Reid can't afford to give that privilege to even one of his Democratic senators (a number of whom face at least as conservative a constituency as those 39 House Democrats.) He needs every one of them to vote for it."

STUPAK: Thanks, Democratic Majority!

Liberal bloggers feel betrayed by the passage of the Stupak amendment:

• MyDD's desmoinesdem: "[T]he Stupak amendment is exactly the kind of thing a Democratic majority was supposed to stop from coming to the floor. The DCCC won't get a dime from me this cycle."
• BooMan: "So, it turns out that the price of passing health care reform in the House is selling women down the river. [...] I didn't realize that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was a political party with elected officials in Congress. Now I know."
• Atrios: "The Worst Person In The World: Bart Stupak. I do not know why some people think women shouldn't have access to appropriate medical care. Something is wrong with them."
• Feministing's Ann Friedman: "This [amendment] sets apart women's rights from the Democratic/progressive/whatever agenda. As something expendable. But fundamental rights for women are not peripheral. They are core. And not just because of so-called 'progressive' values. In a political sense, too: Seeing as how the Democratic party relies on women voters to win elections, you would think they would have come around to this no-brainer by now. It's pretty fucking cramped underneath this bus, what with 50% of Americans down here."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "The Catholic Bishops, who covered up all those horrible sex abuses cases, are now dictating legislative policy in Washington DC. Obama and House leaders let the Bishops rule the health care debate on Saturday through the Stupak amendment. Women of American should understand that the Bishops are now making decisions of their health."
• Firedoglake's Rayne: "It's a fundamental part of our belief system in the Democratic Party, that women have a right to privacy in their reproductive health care decisions. We've fought long and hard to protect this right. And now we've seen decades of work to protect this fundamental human right dashed by our own Democratic representatives."
• digby: "Since the Republicans have made themselves irrelevant with their obstructionism the Democrats have decided that in order to further the president's edict to change the tone and further bipartisanship they will just have to compromise with themselves. Democrats everywhere will now be able to brag about furthering the Godly cause of forced pregnancy, while having also voted to pass health care. If this passes it will have been an historic week for the denial of constitutional rights under our new 'liberal' majority. I'm sure conservatives are very impressed and will vote for Democrats forever and ever because of it."
• The Washington Post's Ezra Klein: "The final compromises before a bill comes to the floor are never very pretty. This one, however, is worse than I anticipated. [...] The idea that people are going to go out and purchase separate 'abortion plans' is both cruel and laughable. If this amendment passes, it will mean that virtually all women with insurance through the exchange who find themselves in the unwanted and unexpected position of needing to terminate a pregnancy will not have coverage for the procedure. Abortion coverage will not be outlawed in this country. It will simply be tiered, reserved for those rich enough to afford insurance themselves or lucky enough to receive from their employers."

Several liberal bloggers are criticizing the logic of the Stupak amendment:

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Basically, the [Stupak] amendment stops any government money from funding insurance plans that cover abortions. The twisted logic being that any money connected to any insurance company covering abortions is 'abortion money,' i.e., profits earned from 'killing babies.' We can't have the government touching that. So I sure hope that no pro-life members of Congress are accepting political donations from any insurance companies that cover abortions. Because if they are accepting such donations, they're accepting profits that came from 'killing little babies.'"
• digby: "By their own logic, if the jackasses of both parties who voted for Stupak have ever taken one single penny from insurance companies that offer coverage for abortions --- and that's all of them --- they are complicit in baby killing. So, by the way, is anyone who invests in insurance companies or accepts money from them in advertising. Fungible means fungible."

STUPAK II: Who To Blame?

Several liberal bloggers are accusing the leading pro-choice organizations of not doing enough to fight the Stupak amendment:

• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Thank you, Planned Parenthood and NARAL, from the bottom of my heart, for sitting on your hands and enabling this shit. Hope you have fun at all those Common Purpose meetings, those cocktail parties at the Pelosi's. You own this one. [...] Could they whip the pro-choice women to block the rule if they want to? Of course they could. Yank their endorsements and they could cause havoc in the Democratic party. But they won't, because [NARAL Pres.] Nancy Keenan and [Planned Parenthood Pres.] Cecile Richards value their own personal position in the veal pen pecking order WAY too much for that. [...] They knew this was coming since at least July 1 -- and they didn't even raise money for the fight."
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "If [Stupak's amendment] makes it in, it won't be the end because we won't let it be. We will continue to fight to strip it in conference. But if it makes it in it will be a bitter, bitter pill to swallow with the bill, and massive, massive failure on the part of pro-choice organizations like NARAL and Planned Parenthood, who knew this was going to be coming for months and did nothing to stave it off."

digby directs her criticism at Obama: "Apparently Obama called congressional Reps personally and told them to 'work it out' on abortion but he never weighed in on his own preferences, thereby letting everyone know that he really didn't give shit.(Of course after his comments that the Hyde Amendment is an American 'tradition' we shouldn't be surprised.) If anyone is expecting him to go into the conference and side with those who want to strip the Stupak Amendment from the final bill, I think they are going to be disappointed. It's pretty clear by now that women's and gay issues are being sacrificed to keep the conservative status quo on life support until it can fully recover."

Several liberal bloggers want to punish the 23 Dems who voted for the Stupak amendment and then proceeded to vote against the final bill:

• Dayen: "64 members of the Democratic caucus voted in favor of the Stupak Amendment. [...] Of the 64, 41 ended up going ahead and voting for the bill. But 23 members voted for Stupak, to restrict choice, and then against the health care reform bill. These 23 are simply moles inside the caucus, opposing key planks of the Democratic platform. What's more, they will have giant targets on their back, both from Democratic activists seeking primaries and Republicans who know that their base will turn out in much stronger numbers for their candidates than these so-called Democrats who appear to stand for nothing."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "The list of Democrats who voted in favor of the Stupak amendment, but against the overall bill, should be available soon. Just as important as primary challenges, we need to create an alternate DCCC, so that progressives don't see their money spent on anti-choice, anti-health care Democrats. A Stupak amendment of our own, if you will, to make sure that our money doesn't end up funding shitty Democrats."

CAO: Traitor!

Many righty bloggers are criticizing Cao for being the only GOPer to vote for the bill:

• NRO's Andy McCarthy: "Evidently, the congressman's about as cheap a date as they come."
• Michelle Malkin: "I had reservations about him on election night because of his soft-on-immigration views. But I gave him the benefit of the doubt. If he could stand strong on limited government and fiscal conservatism, it would be worth it. Well, since he was elected, Cao has backed the S-CHIP expansion, the $108 billion IMF bailout, and the omni-waste spending bill. And he voted to rebuke GOP Rep. Joe Wilson for calling out President Obama on his health care lies. That is a steep price to pay for Rep. William Jefferson's removal. Can't the GOP do better?"
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "The fact that Cao represents a horrible district and will probably not be re-elected should have liberated him to do the right thing -- without regard for political considerations. The fact that he will probably not be re-elected should have reinforced his decision to vote 'no' -- instead, it persuaded him to vote 'aye'. Appeasement, of course, never works. Does Cao really think Democrats will reward him for this? Does he really think Democrats in Louisiana will prefer a squishy Republican over a real liberal Democrat? Cao's vote has serious implications, inasmuch as it provides Democrats with the rhetorical cover to argue this was a bipartisan bill. Make no mistake, this was a legacy vote. Cao had one term to make his legacy. ... And he has."

AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer defends Cao: "Conservatives need to take a deep breath, relax, and stop bashing Joseph Cao. The man never claimed to be a fully committed economic conservative. He represents a district that is about 75 percent Democrat and 62 percent black (or thereabouts). He SAID ALL ALONG, FOR MONTHS, that he would probably vote for health care reform if it included strong pro-life language such as the Stupak Amendment. He stuck to his guns, even though his district is not majority pro-life. He is a traditionalist Catholic, former Jesuit seminarian, and he stands up for the principles he holds dear, one of which is the sanctity of innocent life. He is willing to lose his office on behalf of that pro-life stance."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Senate's The Thing

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias:

"It's worth taking a moment to appreciate the fact that in a unicameral United States of America, we would now have passed both a comprehensive health care reform bill and also the most important piece of environmental legislation in the history of the world. Now that's not the world we live in. Instead we live in a world where neither of those things have passed and where their prospects aren't clear. But think back on this point the next time you hear someone say Obama is struggling with his agenda because he's not centrist enough, or else that Obama is struggling with his agenda because he's not left-wing enough. The reality is that he's struggling with his agenda because of the way our political institutions are structured."

LEST WE FORGET: Fox News Reports: Millions Of Grannies Flee U.S. As Death Panels Loom

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) -- With the establishment of government-mandated death panels just days away, grandmothers began fleeing the United States in record numbers today, reports Fox News.

'I am never one to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater,' said Fox News host Glenn Beck. 'But run for your lives!'

Across the country, slow-moving caravans of 1980s-era Cadillacs with turn signals blinking were making the torturous journey to the Canadian border, their back seats laden with cats, knitting projects, and pictures of grandchildren.

Fox News may have set off the mass exodus by warning grannies that if they did not flee quickly enough they would face government-mandated organ harvesting."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at November 9, 2009 12:52 PM