This doesn't bode well

[MadHound]

Watching the Ed show this evening and Chris van Hollen (D) MD, chairman of the DCCC (fairly high up in the Democratic food chain) is speaking those weasel words concerning the Stupak Amendment, "revise" and "moderate" the POS. That we shouldn't throw healthcare reform over a cliff over one issue (subtext, we'll throw women over the cliff instead).

You don't "moderate", you don't "revise" an amendment like Stupak, you throw it in the trash, you kick it to the curb, you burn it at the stake. Haven't we learned anything over the past thirty years of realpolitik. At some point, probably within twelve years, the Republican right is going to come back and exploit Stupak. Expand its scope by leaps and bounds until womens' right to choose is, in all reality, gone.

You don't play with this sort of toxic crap, you don't regress a society in this manner all for the sake of some sort of political points "victory". You do the responsible thing, the right thing and consign it to the garbage heap of history.

Instead we're hearing the weasel words, that we've heard so many times before, "revise", "moderate".

This does not bode well at all.

[elehhhhna]

1. .

[spanone]

2. .

[MadHound]

3. kick nt

[MadHound]

4. .

[AllentownJake]

5. It isn't going anywhere

People forget, the combined bill has to be voted on, and the same people who pulled the bullshit the first time, will be demanding the ability to pull it the second time.

[Le Taz Hot]

11. And the irony is,

it's a DEMOCRAT (Ben Nelson, D-misogynist MF) who is going to put the same amendment in the Senate version.

[NoUsername]

6. Given their past behavior, I'm guessing that by "revise" and "moderate"

they mean they want to add additional provisions that prevent, say, gays from getting health care coverage because, ya know, AIDS treatment can be expensive and why the hell should the average taxpayer have to pay for the "promiscuous behavior" of "those types" in the first place? IV drug users? Yeah, they're in the same category because Joe Taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for "their problem." Those damn drug users brought it on themselves and it's up to them to pay for it. (Er...do I really need to add the sarcasm tag? Really?)

"Responsible thing?" "The right thing?" Madhound, are you new to this country? ;)

Hell, if the bastards in DC had their way, the only ones covered by health insurance would be the rich and it would be paid for entirely by a tax on the poor and working class. That's the definition of "public option" the status quo would like to see. The rich would be covered w/o having to pay a dime, the profits would continue to be privatized and the costs would be covered entirely by a payroll tax. Of course, the poor and working class wouldn't actually qualify for coverage but they could certainly buy it from any number of companies. And it wouldn't cost much because competition in the free market would ensure that costs would be kept under control just like under the current system...oh wait...

[csziggy]

7. Even Blue Dog Rep. Allen Boyd (D-FL) thinks the Stupak thing will not last

From an article about Boyd's Town Hall this week in Tallahassee, Florida:

"Pam Olsen thanked Boyd for voting against the package but chastised him for opposing an amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., forbidding abortion coverage for participants in the national plan. Boyd said the long-standing prohibition of federal funding for abortion was already in the bill and that "the Stupak amendment over-reached" in forbidding women in a national plan to use their own money for abortion."
http://www.tallahassee.com/article/20091113/NEWS01/911130330/1010/Boyd-gets-mixed-responses-at-forum

That gives me encouragement, even if Boyd pisses me off.

[MadHound]

8. I tend to listen more to those at the top than at the bottom of the Democratic food chain

And when one of them starts speaking in weasel, that generally means some sort of cave is coming.

[csziggy]

9. Unfortunately, Boyd is my Rep. so I have to pay attention to him

So I can call up and give his office staff a piece of my mind when I hate what he is doing. Which is pretty much all the time.

[Lyric]

10. Stupak will be stripped. If it isn't, there won't be a bill.

Too many House Dems have already pledged in writing not to vote for the final bill if it contains Stupak or any other amendment that goes beyond the status-quo.

But if it WERE passed (which it won't be) you'd be absolutely right. A decade or so down the road, the Republicans would pass a federal law taxing abortion, or setting a minimum price, with the profits going to fund "abstinence only education" (puke). The effect of this would be to make abortion so expensive that only wealthy women could afford it, or average women who have abortion insurance. Since the latter will be gone for all practical purposes, we'll be left with legal, safe abortion for the rich only.

Thankfully, that's not going to happen. But it's terrifying to think how close we came.

[MadHound]

12. That's a rosy view,

But I can easily see Dems weaseling on this one, after all, it's not like they haven't done that before. It concerns me when the number five Dem in the house starts throwing around terms like "revise" and "moderate", and starts scolding people who would kill a bill on a single issue. This usually indicates that some sort of "compromise" will be reached so that Dems can declare "victory" while throwing half the population under the bus. This has happened before and it will happen again, and sadly it looks like this is what will happen with the Stupak amendment.

You don't use language like "revise" or "moderate" with this sort of amendment. You use the words "stripped out" and "killed" to indicate that the final bill won't throw women under the bus. Instead, top Dems are using the terms "revise" and "moderate" in reference to the amendment. This does not bode well.

[Echo In Light]

13. "Revise," "moderate," "Look ahead!" "Uniquely American."

Not exactly difficult to discern the obvious pattern