Especially if he or she is on this list, and tell them to vote no on Stupak.
------
Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.
My sense is that this mess is going to pass. Why do we even bother with this party? The right wing’s best plan was to create a rightist party so fanatical, that their opposition could run as far to the “middle” without having to worry about their left flank.
I’ve been told that phone calls mean more to them than email or online petitions, but I can never get through.
I hear ya. I’ve actually heard that the absolute BEST way to get through to the Congresscritters is with a typed letter on a dead tree sent via snail mail.
Not an option on this, obviously, since we have literally only a few hours before this gets voted on.
My sense is that this mess is going to pass. Why do we even bother with this party? The right wing’s best plan was to create a rightist party so fanatical, that their opposition could run as far to the “middle” without having to worry about their left flank.
It’s cliche but it is also true… it is the lesser of two evils.
Believe me, had McCain and the Republicans won last November, not only would we not even be having a healthcare debate, we’d be counting even more dead troops from the War in Iran that would have started six months ago.
I think the frustration is completely valid… but we’re talking about the difference between spinelessly ineffective and nightmarishly awful here.
Yeah, I mean, that’s sort of what I was thinking. It’s a good trick. I always think of political strategy as trying to get your party in power for as much time as possible, but I don’t know if that’s necessarily the best move anymore.
Look at what the Right has managed to do by giving up on the middle: they’ve managed to ensure a center-right Democratic party that has absolutely no incentive to work for its liberal faction. So if your choice is 50% centrist Republican and 50% centrist Democrat, or 10% rightist Republican and 90% center-right Democrat, which one do you take?
If your goal is keeping policies that actually may challenge the upper class out of Washington, you’d take the latter. Don’t work to defeat liberals, just tie Bart Stupak and Harry Reid around their waists and let the liberal party do your work. This is why we’re getting a bill that balances major giveaways to insurance companies with some subsidies to…buy health insurance from them, instead of single payer.
Also, I should link to this:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/human-sacrifice-by-digby-dday-reports.html
I suspect that the leadership decided that abortion was the least important thing they could throw to the slavering Blue Dogs to take home as a victory over the liberals in this debate. And they had to find a hippie to punch to make the thing acceptable to the villagers, so they decided to punch the desperate pregnant girl. She’s used to it.
My Rep can’t answer the phone - he’s leading the floor debate.
Fsck. This actually makes things significantly worse for all americans. Because any insurance policy someone might buy with a subsidy is also an insurance policy they might buy without one.
I called my rep Congresswoman Jackie Speier, who is a Roman Catholic by the way, I got a busy signal a couple times but then got through. A breathless but polite woman answered the phone. I told her I was calling to make sure she (the congresswoman) was voting no on Stupak. The staffer said “Oh, she is. Don’t worry she is.” I got the feeling I wasn’t the first person to call about Stupak. I can’t imagine how frustrating it must be for those of you living in Blue Dog districts. Not that “liberal” Dems are much better but still, just..wow.
I’ve called for what good it may do. I live in Kentucky, I hold little hope that my reps are pro-choice.
Do you all really believe that talking to an underpaid lackey actually impacts how a politician will vote?
Or maybe I’m just bitter because that’s essentially what the guy I spoke to said to me:
“I’m calling to make sure he’ll vote against the amendment”
“I’ll let him know, bye”
His dismissive tone was pretty correct, actually. Do I really think he’s taking a tally of who supports/opposes the amendment and then the congressperson will decide based on which is higher? No, he’s going to take a good long look at which way their largest donors want them to vote and vote that way. Maybe if the donors and lobbyists don’t have much of an opinion on this particular issue, he’ll look at the tally.
Thankfully my Congressman, Russ Carnahan, isn’t on the pro-Stupak list. And surprisingly, none of Missouri’s Democratic Congresscritters are on that list (granted, the Dems only have four of Missouri’s nine Congressional seats, and three of those four represent the St. Louis and Kansas City metros).
I’m sure good ol’ Roy Blunt loves this amendment, however. He’s a repuke, and a birther, so I’m not even gonna waste my time calling his office. Dear discoball, I hope he doesn’t become my state’s next U.S. Senator in the 2010 midterms - it’s probably going to be one of the closest races in the nation. His opponent will most likely be Robin Carnahan, sister of my Congressman, and daughter of the late Mel Carnahan, the man who infamously beat John Ashcroft in the 2000 U.S. Senate race, despite having died in a plane crash three weeks before the election.
DTG in STL: I’ve worked in a Congressional office, and a paper letter is perhaps the *worst* way to get a message through. Since the Anthrax attacks, all snail mail gets “carefully” screened. Most gets through OK, but some gets damaged and becomes illegible, some gets lost. All letters take at least 30 days to reach the member’s office. Once the letters arrive, they are treated in exactly the same way as e-mail correspondence, so you might as well just e-mail in the first place.
The *best* way to communicate with members on the Hill is to be part of an organization that lobbies Congress (like NOW, for example), and have your lobbyist hand-deliver your letter in a face-to-face meeting. That way the member knows you’re not a crank, and that you represent thousands of people, not just a single voice.
Rachel,II: Yes, the underpaid (or more likely unpaid) staffer *is* taking a tally of pro and con calls. The member will look at that tally at least once a week, and maybe every day (along with a pro/con tally of letters and e-mails). What weight they give it is up to them and their political antennae, but it definitely has an impact.
Without the amendment, the bill seems unlikely to pass the House.
I worked in an office that received a ton of calls from conservatives wanting the person I worked for to vote conservative on a particular, small-ish bill issue and not a single call asking for the liberal vote and he still voted liberal. Obviously I’m okay with that, but he’s not really going to vote against his party/conscious/morality just because a few people called. Similar on something like this: I’m sure they’re more interested in which side is going to irritate them longer after the vote in question and then vote whichever way appeases them.
All this said, I totally think Pelosi is the chess player that everyone wonders that Obama is: doing shitty things because she’s manipulating everything a dozen moves in advance. She’s super pro-choice and she also wants amazing healthcare reform that includes a public option. This is a shitty thing to do, obviously, but the larger issue is healthcare reform and now she’ll be able to push through the public option. I think she’s the best Democratic leader we have and has accomplished many more Democratic goals than Harry Reid and Obama.
It’s so frustrating- every time I call for things like this, their phone lines are busy or their voicemail boxes are full so i can’t even leave a message.
It may not be quite as good, but you can always e-mail them through their congressional website. I’m pretty sure those boxes never fill up. At least it’s something if you can’t get through, you know?
Sure, lesser of two evils, sacrifices have to be made, blah blah. Once again, what it boils down to is women having to “make the sacrifices”, and getting shafted. Silly women, you’re only half the fucking population, pipe down and look at the big picture! Again. So tired of it.
Rachel,II @17: Yes, I agree. Most members of Congress probably use the volume of phone calls and e-mails to gauge the strength of activist outrage on a particular issue, and to gauge the effectiveness of lobby groups in activating their members to call/write (a proxy for their ability to activate campaign workers, donors, and voters).
Cornpone, women are going to receive tremendous gains under this health care bill even with the Stupak amendment.
It should also be noted… the bill that is being voted on in the next hour is NOT the final bill that will wind up on Obama’s desk. This is simply the House Bill. The Senate has to get their own bill passed, and then the two bills will have to be merged together, and whatever comes from that will be the final bill that will go into law.
Between now and then, lots of things can be changed - things can be added, and things can be removed. It is theoretically possible that even the Stupak amendment in this bill might not be in the final bill after going through conference.
The one thing that’s perhaps most frustrating about this whole process is that the House Bill keeps getting pitched to the public as if it is going to be exactly what we are going to get. Unfortunately, the Senate Bill is almost certainly going to be less progressive than the House Bill, and the bill that emerges from conference will probably be somewhere in between the two - which means that if you think that the bill they are about to vote on is disappointing, you are probably gonna be even more disappointed when the final bill comes out of conference.
”Without the amendment, the bill seems unlikely to pass the House”
Is that really true though?
Its one thing to vote against when you know it will pass or fail overwhelmingly anyway, but its another for your average risk-adverse pol to be the 218th no vote
There is no cover, HCR fails and everybody is pointing the finger at you, by name
And although caving on abortion rights may be a safe vote in some districts, its only safe when it doesn’t cost the rest of your constituents anything. Putting anti-abortion extremism above the parochial interests is part of why Hoffman lost NY-23
Its one thing to vote against when you know it will pass or fail overwhelmingly anyway, but its another for your average risk-adverse pol to be the 218th no vote
There is no cover, HCR fails and everybody is pointing the finger at you, by name
Not completely true. A unanimous “no” by the House Republican Caucus still requires the (traitorous) support of at least 41 House Democrats in order to kill legislation.
So you wouldn’t actually be the “one” vote that killed the bill, you would be one of 41 votes that killed the bill.
I share with most others the general sentiment that Nancy Pelosi has proven to be a far more effective leader than her Senate counterpart, Harry Reid. But, to Harry Reid’s credit… Speaker Pelosi does have a decidedly stronger hand to play with when it comes to whipping votes together. As the House doesn’t have a filibuster, all she needs to get things done is 50%+1 to move forward - 218 votes. There are 258 Democrats in the House. That means that she only needs to wrangle 85% of her own caucus on any particular issue to get legislation pushed through. She effectively has 40 superfluous votes on her side that she doesn’t need to get things done.
Reid does not have that luxury, at least not as long as the current filibuster rules are in play… there can be absolutely no deviation whatsoever when the entire Republican Senate Caucus plans to filibuster - a single senator in the Democratic Caucus can kill an entire bill (as Joe Lieberman is threatening to do) - Reid must whip 100% of his votes to his side to move anything forward when facing unanimous Republican opposition.
This is precisely why we will always see the more progressive version of proposed legislation coming from the House… because Pelosi has an easier path to get things passed than does Reid.
Rachel, II, just a reminder before we get all ready to worship our beloved politicians’ beneficence and what not.
Pregnancy terminations are 1) safe and effective medical procedures, and 2) legal in this country. I know that to be true because, according to those who make medical decisions for women—politicians and Catholic Bishops—as long as the “patient has been brutalized” prerequisite is fulfilled terminations are to be covered.
Jane Hamsher appears (rightfully) infuriated by the passage of the Stupak Amendment, and aside from her scathing criticism of the old white men who made this happen, she’s blasting off on both NARAL and Planned Parenthood for their inaction in the face of this. Apparantly Stupak has been saying he was gonna do this since July, and NARAL and PP kind of sat back and watched it all happen and did very little to stop it…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/naral-and-planned-parenth_b_349596.html
Assholes.
The Stupak amendment will not only prohibit public finance of abortion, but will cause abortion to be dropped from ALL insurance packages. Why should they cover a procedure that’s been singled out? Why should they pay for anything they don’t have to pay for?
Once part of a pregnancy can be dropped, why should ANY plan pay for a complicated pregnancy.
What happens to the type of women Dr. Tiller helped, like members of my own family, who have wanted babies that do not form properly in utero? They need abortions to preserve their health, or should they have to carry the dead or dying fetus until it becomes septic and destroys their ability to have children? Not to mention the damage of remaining pregnant with a dying baby AGAINST YOUR WILL.
It’s not just slutty mcslut sluts who have abortion parties. Real women in real medical need require legal medical procedures—whether they are in week 5 or week 25. There is no justice in carving out legal medical procedures from being covered.
”Not completely true. A unanimous “no” by the House Republican Caucus still requires the (traitorous) support of at least 41 House Democrats in order to kill legislation.
So you wouldn’t actually be the “one” vote that killed the bill, you would be one of 41 votes that killed the bill.”
Fair enough,
but I still hold by my original point, if it goes down by a few votes, and you were one of the nays because of abortion, it will be seen by your voters like when Gingrich shutting down the government because he didn’t get a window seat on air force one
Even more so if its not “I voted no because the Stupik amendment failed” but instead its “I voted no because the rules committee procedural vote on bringing the Stupak amendment to the floor failed”
Once you have 220 or so yeas, a nay is the less risky option because a year from now most voters will not remember who the 3 dozen Dem nays were
But if you have 216 yeas, then being another yea becomes the less risky option
”Apparantly Stupak has been saying he was gonna do this since July, and NARAL and PP kind of sat back and watched it all happen and did very little to stop it….”
Yeah, well NARAL endorsed “rape gurney” Joe Lieberman in the general (over the CT chapter’s objections) so I don’t see why anybody’s surprised
64 Democrats voted Yea on Stupak. I really hope we see strong primary challenges in 2010.
“64 Democrats voted Yea on Stupak”
how did Owens (NY-23) vote?
I have no idea, I’ve been googling for a list of Yea votes but no luck, it may be too early to find anything.
Could this bill have passed if the Amendment failed?
This is the downside of having zero moderate Republicans left, and still having conservative Democrats—instead of having centrists pull the Republican Party forward, we have centrists holding the Democratic Party back.
Well, no surprise that my Congresscritter Bobby Scott voted “yea” (minority-majority district, he always wins in a walk). But I’m pleasantly surprised that Rick Boucher from VA-9, the “West Virginia part of Virginia” voted “nay” as well! That took some real guts on his part.
The only Virginia Democrat to vote for it was Perelio from VA-5, Virgil “the Muslims are Coming” Goode’s old district, which he won by a hair last time. I’ll still take him over that Dixiecrat* asswipe Goode any day of the week.
*He was a “Democrat” (the old-fashioned racist southern kind) until the ‘90s when he finally became honest with himself and switched parties.
NARAL and PP kind of sat back and watched it all happen and did very little to stop it…
Jane Hamsher is fairly strident on this, but she makes an important point: NARAL and the DC lobbying bit of PP rely (for funding and outreach) on abortion being under threat just as much as the forced-birth brigade rely upon abortion remaining legal. Expect a few fundraising mailouts tomorrow or in the week to come. You ought to tell them to take a hike.
(There are some interesting Blue Dog nays in that roll call, not least Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SC), who represents a state with vocal anti-choice forces.)
Real women in real medical need require legal medical procedures—whether they are in week 5 or week 25. There is no justice in carving out legal medical procedures from being covered.
The Netherlands treats abortion as an “exceptional medical procedure”, and covers it through the payroll tax element of its healthcare system. The Dutch abortion rate is half that of the US, in part because it regards slut-shaming as immature and counterproductive.
Rachel,II, best to keep the focus of your frustration on, say, the 220 politicians who voted to pass a bill containing the Stupak-Pitts amendment.
It really made my day to see, live on C-SPAN, Steny Hoyer shutting down the Republican temper tantrum. He just basically told them “cool story, bro” then got the bill passed as they hollered and booed.
Golly, last night we marched to our glorious victory (consisting of forcing more people to pay for fraudulent health “insurance”) over the bodies of poor women. I just can’t contain my excitement, or my eagerness to go out and vote for Democrats next year.
I have a real problem with passing this bill at all now.
It’s already a horrible compromise, and they just threw women’s health under the bus. Again, not all abortions are simple or in the first trimester. If abortions can’t be covered, then women with complicated mid and late term abortions are SHIT OUT OF LUCK.
Get septic and die, even you married women who want babies! You have failed at being a womb, so just fucking die or become infertile because you can’t afford a few thousand dollars for a legal medical procedure.
And it’s okay, because women ain’t shit. They don’t deserve legal medical coverage, and in order to get a compromised and crappy health care reform bill, it’s TOTALLY worth further restricting their right to obtain needed legal medical procedures.
Fuck this whole country.
Progressives are going to get rolled again and again until they spike one of these horrible bills. The single payer amendment was withdrawn so that we wouldn’t have to put up with a vote for institutionalized misogyny, and yet the Stupak amendment made it to the floor anyway. Stabbed in the back by the leadership. And for no reason. Stupak was bluffing, and has admitted as much.
Hey Obama is this what you mean by “common ground”? Fuck him and his mealy mouthed approach to abortion. Fuck all of them. I don’t think the Repubs will be happy until 1. Birth control is outlawed again. 2. Women start dying from botched abortions again.
Funny, Owens, from District 23* voted Nay and he’s anti choice. (I refuse to use the term pro life).
*I live in District 23, and was amazed at the national coverage. I still would have like Scozzafava to win, she’s pro gay and pro choice, but Owens is far better then the odious and creepy Hoffman
rachel @ 36
Thanks for the link
“Funny, Owens, from District 23* voted Nay and he’s anti choice”
I had heard he was pretty blue doggy, but by voting nay on Stupak maybe he is better then expected
It’s so frustrating- every time I call for things like this, their phone lines are busy or their voicemail boxes are full so i can’t even leave a message. I’ve been told that phone calls mean more to them than email or online petitions, but I can never get through. So Congressman Doyle, if you’re out there, vote no. And hire some more staffers to answer your phone.