"STUPAK HAPPENS TO BE WRONG" Worth exposing bart stupak

[Cha]

as much as possible. His obstinacy to facts is contagious.

<snip>

"ABC News did a nice job fact-checking Stupak's argument this week, and Slate's Tim Noah (a Monthly alum) published the definitive takedown a couple of days ago, explaining that some areas of the debate are open to interpretation and debate, but this isn't one of them: "Stupak happens to be wrong."

Usually, this would be enough. Democratic leaders would explain the truth to Stupak and his allies, making the case on the merits -- the Senate compromise language, endorsed by center-right Dems who oppose abortion rights, already does what Stupak & Co. want, which is to prevent public funding of abortion.

But Stupak has been reluctant to listen to reason, and continues to make claims that simply fail to stand up to scrutiny. The new goal is to strike a related deal that would address Stupak's concerns in a separate-but-connected bill. That may or may not be enough.

"In the meantime, though, it's worth re-emphasizing reality -- Stupak's argument is factually in error. That will make negotiations with him more complicated -- lawmakers who stick to a mistake after it's been exposed as a mistake can be challenging to deal with -- but that's where we find ourselves."

—Steve Benen 11:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (42)
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

[Hamlette]

1. We should keep asking him to tell us who subsidized his rent for all those years at C Street

as Rachael exposed last week on her show.

If we can turn up the heat on him, maybe he won't want to show boat all the time.

I'd also point out that we subsidize abortions for "rich" women by allowing a deduction for health insurance provided by employers. I know most of us who have employer insurance don't like to talk about this but it really is a huge loop hole. and it is a subsidy from the feds

Maybe we need to really rethink the tax code.

[Cha]

2. Rachel did an intense

job of exposing bart stupak and he evidently left his cozy digs recently because of just such questions as "Who's paying for him to live there?"

Here's more today from Steve Benen on bart stupak..

"STUPAK BACK AT CENTER STAGE".... At various times throughout the health care reform process, various figures have been at the center of the universe. For a while, it was Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine.). Then Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). In December, all eyes were on Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.).

In the home stretch, let there be no doubt that Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who is threatening to kill the legislation over indirect, circuitous funding of abortion, has the spotlight largely to himself.

On CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.) said Dems were continuing to work on Stupak, who has said he could take a dozen Dems into the "no" category with disagreements over abortion language in the final bill.

"We are going to continue to work with Bart Stupak, and those members for whom that was the biggest concern," Van Hollen said. "Because you have in the Senate pro-life members like Sen. Casey, Sen. Nelson, all of whom were clearly satisfied that the way the Senate did it met our objective of making sure that no public funds can go to abortion.

"The issue is, what can you use your own money for?" Van Hollen added. "In other words, right now today, if you want to go out with your own money and purchase a healthcare plan, you have that option."

When pressed by host Candy Crowley about whether Dems had lost Stupak and his allied congressmen, Van Hollen was cautiously optimistic.

Around the same time, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sounded a similar note.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says President Obama and Rep. Bart Stupak share the goal of a status quo of no federal funding for abortion in the health care reform package. In a "This Week" interview, Sebelius added that if the abortion language in the Senate bill does not satisfy Stupak, "the conversation will continue". Stupak says he carries with him 11 votes which hinge on abortion and those votes could be the difference in the bill's fate in the House.

*-This emphasis on Stupak tells us a few important things. One, no one seems to think the Michigan Democrat is bluffing. Two, everyone seems to assume that Stupak really does have a bloc of votes, possibly as many as a dozen, in his pocket. And three, the leadership has probably concluded that there aren't 12 Blue Dogs that can be persuaded to switch from "nay" to "yea," enough to make Stupak's threats irrelevant."

—Steve Benen 2:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

The stupak saga continues..

[madamesilverspurs]

3. "STUPAK HAPPENS"

Can't help it, that's what jumped out from the subject line. There's a bumper sticker waiting to happen. . .

-

[Cha]

4. So true! And, it's not what happens..

it's how you handle it.

[madamesilverspurs]

5. Belated, but --

-

[Kaleva]

6. Actually, the voters in Stupak's district are well aware of his views on abortion.

And have been for close to 20 years.

[Cha]

7. Wonder if they care how disingenuous he's

being on the Health Care REform Bill?

[Kaleva]

9. The district is split about 50/50 on health care reform

That's based on the calls and e-mails his office gets as there have been no actual polls conducted in this district on the issue.

[Cha]

8. Bart Stupak's Dozen(?)

Solomon Ortiz (D-TX)
Jerry Costello (D-IL)
James Oberstar (D-MN)
Steve Driehaus (D-OH)
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
Paul Kanjorski (D-PA)
Kathleen Dahlkemper (D-PA).
Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Brad Ellsworth (D-IN)
Dan Lipinski (D-IL)
Charlie Wilson (D-OH)


http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/dirty-dozen-does-stupak-really-have-the-votes-needed-to-sink-health-care.php?ref=fpb