CBS News confirms the Judas of health care will be holding a press conference at 12:30 to announce his retirement:
Stupak negotiated with Democratic leaders down to the eleventh hour for stricter abortion language in the health care bill, but he ultimately voted for it after President Obama agreed to sign an executive order assuring the new laws will keep taxpayer dollars from funding abortions.
That prompted the conservative Tea Party Express to launch a $250,000 ad campaign against Stupak this week. The group also scheduled a handful of stops on its bus tour in Stupak's district.
On the left, the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America has been working to defeat Stupak and instead elect his Democratic primary challenger Connie Saltonstall.
MSNBC's Chuck Todd reported Democrats considered this a positive as they had anticipated losing 3 or 4 over the break to retirement. My head is still spinning from that one. I thought health care was going to save them after it passed, why would anyone retire? I wonder if Stupak took the offer of $700,000 from the Tea Party Express to retire. There was nothing left to sell out but his seat so why not collect his silver and run.
Democratic sources in Washington and Michigan say they fear losing Stupak, a historically popular Democrat in a sprawling conservative district, will mean likely losing his seat to the Republicans.
According to one Democratic source familiar with his plans, Stupak is expected to make the case that he is leaving because he has accomplished what he went to Washington in 1992 to do - pass health care reform.
He will also say he considered retiring several times in the past.
Responding to news of the retirement, National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Ken Spain said: “After selling his soul to Nancy Pelosi, it appears that Bart Stupak finally found the courage to tell her no. The political fallout over the Democrats’ government takeover of healthcare has put the political careers of many Democrats in jeopardy thanks in-part to Stupak’s decision to abandon his alleged pro-life principles. Unfortunately for Pelosi, she was unable to strong-arm Stupak one last time as she becomes increasingly aware of the fact that her hold on the Speaker’s gavel is loosening by the day.”
Both Pelosi and Obama reportedly urged Stupak to stay in the race, which explains the reference to finding the courage to tell Pelosi no. No doubt Democrats fear losing this seat which was considered safe prior to Stupak's vote. There can be no argument there is room in the Democratic party for pro-life moderate candidates. Stupak's district is made up of socially conservative working class people who would have been open to the populist Democratic message. Ed Morrissey predicts the vote will now be a referendum on Pelosi while the left is hoping that a top tier candidate to replace Stupak might save the seat. No one could possibly believe a moderate Democrat won't do exactly as Stupak did.
Breaking Stupak Voting Yes? - Game over if true - Stupak denying this Baird switches vote according to Fox - The Dems must have twisted enough arms to get their votes. Pelosi carrying gavel used by John Dingell to pass Medicare. Fitting to pass the entitlement that will bankrupt the US.
The Hill reports conflicting accounts of where the vote stands right now:
In a sign of some uncertainty, though, heading into the vote, one of Democrats' chief deputy whips said Sunday that they may not have a hard head count with enough votes at this point.
"We don’t have a hard 216 right now," Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said during an appearance on "Fox News Sunday."
She did express confidence that Dems would hit the number, adding, "I firmly believe we will have 216."
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told NBC’s "Meet the Press" that “there are still members who are looking at it and making up their mind, but we still think there are going to be 216-plus votes when we call the roll.”
It will all come down to Stupak who claims he has 8 currently in his block. He was scheduled to hold a press conference at Noon which was cancelled. Who knows where they are exactly, but Dan Perrin claims to have sources on both sides saying they do not have the votes.
The reality of this or any other text, though is: It is meaningless legally. It has no binding effect. I don't know a single lawyer with a working knowledge of the Constitution, Congress, and the Executive, who says otherwise.
Will update this post with news as it happens. Check our group blog Potluck for news as well.
That Rep. Brad Ellsworth would be walking the plank for ObamaCare could mean one of two things. Either the desperate Dems were short votes or were there with no room to spare. As Ellsworth is Congressman from Indiana running to fill Evan Bayh's Senate seat, it seems unlikely a vote for ObamaCare would do much to spur his election chances along. The subsequent announcement Rep Harry Teague (NM) would vote no, makes clear the Democrats were not flush with yes votes with room to spare as they would have us believe. Though Teague faces a tough re-election, given the choice between losing a seat in the House vs a seat in the House and the Senate, Teague's seat seems more expendable.
Clearly, Pelosi was up against a wall. Hence we have the news she struck a deal with Bart Stupak to have a vote on his amendment in a tie-car legislation co-sponsored by Marion Berry, Sanford Bishop, Joseph Cao, Kathy Dahlkemper, Steve Driehaus, Marcy Kaptur, Dan Lipinski, Alan Mollohan, and Nick Rahall. The co-sponsors appear to be previous yes votes who were members of Stupak's block. Cao, the lone Republican remains a committed no vote but the remaining 8 have voted yes previously and are in far better positions than someone like Ellsworth to cast a vote for the bill now.
Yet another reason to suspect Pelosi needed those Stupak votes was the chaos that followed the assorted leaks spreading the news of the potential vote on Stupak's Concurrent Resolution amending abortion language. Jane Hamsher writes:
Pro-choice members of the House, however, are demanding that the vote on the Concurrent Resolution happen before the House confirms the Senate bill. If in fact it passes, they plan to vote against confirming the Senate bill. They want Rep. Diana Degette to release the names of the 41 cosigners to her letter who pledged to vote against any bill that restricts a woman’s right to choose, and they are angry that the White House has been whipping to push through the Stupak deal.
“It is outrageous that a Democratic Speaker, a Democratic Majority Leader and a Democratic President should support rolling back women’s reproductive rights,” says one member of the group.
It seems most unlikely Pelosi invited this chaos merely to have extra votes for show. If Pelosi had her votes, they'd be voting as has been said many times. Allahpundit thinks Pelosi might be looking to have spare votes so she can set a few serious plank walkers free. Anyone who switches from a yes to a no at this point has already declared their allegiance to party first. It is not beyond Democrats, however, to think no one will notice this nonsense so anything is possible.
Stupak seems to think he has a viable strategy and the votes to pass a Concurrent Resolution on abortion in the House and Senate. This should be treated with some skepticism, but Pelosi appears willing to give him the vote. The good news, the progressives led by Rep. Diana Degette are demanding the vote take place prior to the vote on reconciliation that will deem the Senate bill into law. Degette claims to have the votes to prevent passage of the reconciliation bill should Stupak's bill pass. Stupak, however, claims he is confident he has the votes to pass his Concurrent Resolution after the reconciliation vote takes place. Personally, if Stupak's vote has the progressive women in this much of an uproar, by all means demand Stupak's vote goes first. Let the internal Dem squabbling implode this bill to smithereens. Stupak is giving a press conference at 11 AM, we'll soon find out how this plays out. I am hoping for a cat fight or two and lots of chaos on the sides.
"I regret that this year-long process of debating health care reform has resulted in a final product that I cannot support," he said. "The cost of inaction on health care is great, but it would be an even bigger mistake to pass a bill that could compound the problem of skyrocketing health care costs."
In a live interview on KDKA-TV News at 6 on Tuesday, Altmire said his constituents would help him make the final decision.
"I'm deciding it by doing everything I possibly can to hear what they have to say," he said "The rallies at my office, the phone calls, emails, and letters that are coming in to Washington and in the district."
What he heard from his constituents was the vast majority of them opposed this health care reform. So, is this a big win for "nomentum?" It is tough to say. Rep. Alan Boyd of Florida has declared he will vote for the bill. Boyd is facing a tough primary challenge from the left in a R+6 District. Go figure. Clearly some who were annoyed on the left decided his previous no vote merited a primary challenge as punishment. Though they couldn't have known about the importance of this vote at the time, the challenge does seem to have bought them another yes vote.
It's looking grim. Breaking news Brad Ellsworth is breaking with the Stupak coalition to vote yes. So where does this leave the Stupak coalition? Looks as though we will find out tomorrow at 11 AM.
Update: Stupak's office sent out an email saying he will hold a press conference with "other pro-life" members at 11:00a.m. to discuss the health care bill. Maybe all the pro-life Democrats cut a deal?
If they've made a deal then this is done. Stay tuned.
UPDATE: Eric Cantor claims Democrats are bluffing and details why in the link. Byron York concludes:
Who is correct? It's clear the Democrats are working around the clock to create a sense of momentum and inevitability about the vote. But the fact is, there are still enough unknowns to say the outcome is entirely in doubt.
In light of breaking news the President is delaying his trip to Indonesia because they clearly do not have the votes to pass health care, this video might explain part of the problem. Rep. Stupak went a bit rogue last night in an interview with Greta Van Sustern explaining the dysfunctional mess inside the Democratic caucus trying to get votes. Today we find the admission that the leadership wants to pay for abortion despite repeated denials from the leadership and from Obama himself on many occasions is just too much for Stupak to overcome.
Stupak knows that this can't be fixed via reconciliation. The budgetary process will not allow it. If the House were to agree to a fix, it would never make it through the Senate:
Senate Democrats are bound to reject the Stupak language, just like they did in December. Specifically, somebody like Barbara Boxer will raise a Point of Order against the Stupak language to get it stricken from the reconciliation bill. The parliamentarian will presumably advise that the objection is valid - and 60 votes will be required to overturn the ruling to strike it. A majority of Senators will probably vote to overturn it - just as a majority voted for Stupak language in December - but it will fall short of the needed 60 vote supermajority. (Side prediction: the liberals who have been huffing and puffing about the supermajority requirements in the Senate will not be terribly upset by this.)
Furthermore, with the news from the Parliamentarian that the bill must be signed into law before reconciliation can take place, we know Stupak's leverage is gone completely once he gives his vote to make that happen. He knows they want to fund abortions, any vote from him or his block will all but guarantee abortion funding will be the law of the land.
Like so many B Movie Monsters, declaring health care dead can be a tricky thing. When, by all counts, the bill was on its' ninth life and on life support, Pelosi's declaration she did not have the votes seemed a certain fatal blow. Still, we've witnessed the monster open a gruesome eye and proceed to unleash more terror in the villages. Keep this in mind when following the latest blows to ObamaCare.
The first is largely a public relations blow, but still a blow nonetheless. Who knew President Obama had a cousin who is a practicing physician? Who knew he opposes ObamaCare? Compelled by the never ending health care push, Dr. Milton R. Wolf, second cousin to Barack Obama, finally made his opposition public. Here are few choice excerpts but, by all means, read the rest:
The justification for Obamacare has been to control costs, but the problem is there is little in Obamacare that will do that. Instead, there are provisions that will ration care and artificially set price. This is a confusion of costs and price.
Then there is this choice morsel:
Between Barack and a hard place
I have personally trained and practiced in both the government-run and free-market segments of American medicine. The difference is vast. Patients see this for themselves, and this may be why, according to a recent CNN poll, they oppose Obamacare nearly 3 to 1. I am with them. It is difficult for me to speak publicly against the president on his central issue, but too much is at stake.
I wish my cousin Barack the greatest of success in office. But I feel duty-bound to rise in opposition to Obamacare. I must take a stand for my patients, my profession and, ultimately, my country. The problems caused by government will not be solved by growing government. Now that this new era of big-government takeovers has spread to our health care system, it's not just our freedoms or our wallets that are at stake. It's our lives.
I have long felt this health care debate would have fallen apart long before this, long before the guy with the truck even, had the Obama administration not been shrewd enough to secure the support and subsequent silence of the health care industry. While some have expressed serious concerns over aspects of the plan, they have generally flown under the radar. Had they not, the already skeptical public would have been unnerved to a greater degree than has been expressed thus far. The support, superficial or sincere, of the health care industry has given at least some credibility to the administrations efforts thus far. For this reason, the editorial penned by a member of Obama's own family opposing the reform is stunning to say the least.
The second is potentially a much more serious blow. In any other world this would be fatal but with this Congress and this administration, such limitations seem not to apply. "This is their do or die moment," according to Paul Ryan so it's "game on" despite the fact the Senate Parliamentarian has declared the Senate bill must be signed into law before any reconciliation games begin, if they ever do:
Regardless of how bad a reconciliation package looks, Ryan says it is the passage of the Senate bill in the House that troubles him the most. “The Senate parliamentarian made it clear today,” he says. “The Senate bill has to become law before reconciliation can be taken up in the Senate. Knowing this, the Democrats are doing whatever they can to convince House members to walk the plank. But let’s be very clear: If the Senate bill passes in the House, it’s not just some setup for reconciliation — it’s a huge, new federal entitlement that’ll be signed into law.”
“To get that, they need to make promises to members about what’ll come next, so look for them to thread the needle on policy changes and abortion in the budget and rules committees,” Ryan says. “Reconciliation is a distraction for the Democratic leadership — something to talk about with members while keeping their eye on the main prize, which is passing the Senate bill.”
This puts passage of the House bill in jeopardy, particularly because the Stupak contingent have all but sworn they would not vote for the Senate bill without the guarantee of a fix for abortion language in the Senate bill they find objectionable. Early in the day it looked as though House leadership would attempt to gain the 216 votes needed for passage without seeking to find a strategy to secure the votes of the Stupak group. The news of the Parliamentarian's decision, however, raises the potential that Stupak had already decided at least he could not support the intended path to passing legislation. The following interview with Greta Van Sustern makes clear Stupak has severe doubts there will be a fix, whether by reconciliation or a magic wand, to the Senate bill once passed:
What becomes rather clear in the interview, there is a good deal of dysfunction amongst the Democrats about passing this bill. The timelines, growing distrust between the chambers and genuine fears members of the House will be fed in sacrifice to appease the great government health care gods all appear to be weighing against the likelihood of passage. Michelle Bachmann was interviewed on Hannity's radio program earlier today and stated the Democrats were at each others throats. Nevertheless, the Obama administration and Democratic leadership will not be deterred.
Despite the fact that everyday brings at least another potential no vote to the surface, we must remember we've seen this all before. When no one could believe they would stay in session in the Senate to pass the unpopular bill on Christmas Eve, the odds were defied and the bill passed. If there is a will there is a way with this Congress and we can say without absolute certainty there is a will. Astonishing though it might be, the progressives are actually still looking for ways they can add on the public option. Don't look now, Glenn Close just opened an eye from the bathtub. The health care "Fatal Attraction" continues.
