Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NRO: Stupak is 'Finished with Pelosi'
National Review Online ^ | March 20, 2010 | By Robert Costa

Posted on 03/20/2010 8:05:28 AM PDT by MaestroLC

Two pro-life GOP members close to Stupak tell NRO that any Stupak deals are off. They just spoke with him and they said he's finished with Pelosi. They rejected his enrollment corrections proposal.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: healthcare; house; pelosi; stupak
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last
To: newfreep

If they (mis)use Slaughter, then couldn’t a case be made that the entire bill is unconstitutional? Whereas if this highly unpopular bill narrowly passes by a (more or less) normal voting, then a case can be brought against specific measures (the individual mandate, for eg) but not necessarily against the bill in its entirety? (The case that Congress is prohibited from passing laws on healthcare is popular on FR, but everywhere else it is taken for granted that the ICC can be stretched (to the breaking point) to accommodate it. As for the belief that the USSC would refuse to interfere with the use of the Slaughter Rule in a manner far more sweeping than any previous use : The state AG’s are lining up , so they seem to think something could be done after the fact. If-*IF*-I am right, then passage via slaughter *might* be the best way to not only kill the bill, but seriously piss off all republicans, most independents, and quite a few Democrats, just in time for the November elections.(No, I don’t think this will be forgotten by then : Especially when more people learn that no, they WON’T get free “health care”, but will be forced to buy (very expensive ) health insurance at gunpoint.)


41 posted on 03/20/2010 8:26:04 AM PDT by kaylar (It's MARTIAL law. Not marshal(l) or marital-MARTIAL! This has been a spelling PSA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: MaestroLC

“Oh yeah! At Waterloo, Obama did surrender . . .”


42 posted on 03/20/2010 8:26:07 AM PDT by Hoodat (For the weapons of our warfare are mighty in God for pulling down strongholds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free America52

Yup, Stupak had to be important to “horrible” or she would not have risked ticking off the infanticidal maniacs.


43 posted on 03/20/2010 8:26:56 AM PDT by HerrBlucher ("When the national government and Congress start going wild, it's up the states to rein them in.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter

Since when did the Executive Branch merge with the Legislative Branch making obama the boss?
(Rhetorical question only)


44 posted on 03/20/2010 8:27:05 AM PDT by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CSI007
If this is true then she already has the votes she needs for passage of the bill.

That's the problem with this kind of "inside baseball" info right now: it could either be good news or bad news.

I am still stunned at how much trouble the dems are having getting this thing through. On paper, this should be a slam-dunk.

I have been thinking that the election of O has done more for conservative/libertarian values and political activism by our side than anything in recent memory. If that sodden old fool McCain had been elected, he would be ramming the same stuff through. I am wondering if the best thing for con/lib values would be for this beast to pass with the maximum amount of chicanery.

It's time to force a crisis on our terms.

45 posted on 03/20/2010 8:27:07 AM PDT by ajwharton (FL GOP Pollwatcher, ACORN-buster, now in NH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

Just got through to Stupak.....very quick call, they are inundated with calls. Asked if I opposed or support the bill.....OPPOSE. He said, thank you and have a good day.


46 posted on 03/20/2010 8:28:04 AM PDT by Blue Turtle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: MaestroLC

You know, when you look at her face, and at her unskillful attempt to beautify it with makeup, you just know she can’t do a convincing job finding the right shade of lipstick for this pig either.


47 posted on 03/20/2010 8:28:29 AM PDT by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Retired Army Guy

[Somebody tell Stupak he is in the wrong party]

No, he is in the right party. He supports this bill other than the abortion language.


48 posted on 03/20/2010 8:28:31 AM PDT by KansasGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
Of course he is and that’s why he has no courage.
49 posted on 03/20/2010 8:29:03 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: 444Flyer

Please post this picture to the “Natural Law” thread, because it is such a graphic reminder of the Creator-endowed liberty a child in the womb possesses—a liberty the Congress, Senate, and Administration want us all to assist in denying.


50 posted on 03/20/2010 8:29:09 AM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: kaylar

The bill is blatantly unconstitutional even without slaughter. Several AGs are already preparing lawsuits.


51 posted on 03/20/2010 8:29:38 AM PDT by HerrBlucher ("When the national government and Congress start going wild, it's up the states to rein them in.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: atc23

I’m curious, look at thehill.com’s count (link below), they claim opponents need 38 “no” votes to defeat the bill, the current “no” count is 36, but Joseph Cao (R-La.) is not listed as a “no” or “undecided.” Cao said he is a “no,” that would bring the “no’s” to 37. What is thehill.com up to?

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/85693-whip-watch-the-hills-survey-of-house-dems-positions-on-healthcare-


52 posted on 03/20/2010 8:29:46 AM PDT by moose2004 (Stand up, speak out and stop Obamacare and GE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: 444Flyer

Obama’s waterloo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80deST3naq0


53 posted on 03/20/2010 8:29:48 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CSI007

No it doesn’t. She has been advised by the pro-abortion feminazi congresscritters that they have 40 votes ready to vote no if she attempts to remove abortion funding language. It’s easier for her to manage the 12 pro-life “no” votes than to hit the brakes and corral the 40 baby-killer votes that are threatening to go AWOL.

It’s simple math. She can’t please both masters, so she chose the easier path to passage.


54 posted on 03/20/2010 8:29:51 AM PDT by Buckeye Battle Cry (Enjoy nature - eat meat, wear fur and drive your car!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 444Flyer
Oh noooooo! More and more of the 70s just keep coming back! Aaaaagh!


55 posted on 03/20/2010 8:29:58 AM PDT by Oceander (The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance -- Thos. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: kaylar
Agree with you on all points.

I hope this can be defeated in Congress and not reply on SCOTUS to overrule. Considering they upheld mccain-feingold (initially) and Kelo (sp?), SCOTUS rulings are not always constituional.

56 posted on 03/20/2010 8:30:19 AM PDT by newfreep (Palin/DeMint 2012 - Bolton: Secy of State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

“she has been told to fall on her sword by Obama.”

I wish that wasn’t just a figure of speech. I would pay a healthy pay-per-view to see that happen.


57 posted on 03/20/2010 8:30:52 AM PDT by A Strict Constructionist (The Constitution is the issue, other issues are small potatoes. If we fail none will matter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MaestroLC

Wouldn’t it be ironic that abortion aborts this abortion of a bill....


58 posted on 03/20/2010 8:30:56 AM PDT by rightwingextremist1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Retired Army Guy

This bill has finally brought to light the truth that we all knew all along. There is no room in the Dem party for a person who is pro-life. Stupak has to stand pat or else he makes his whole political life a lie. You cannot say that you are pro-life, say a bill violates that stand and then later cave and vote for that bill. He seems to understand that. I don’t think he will cave.

Some of his group may sell out. If so, they will just prove that life is for sale in the Dem party. And for sale, cheap. People who are pro-life will not be able to support a pro-life Dem as an alternative to a Republican anymore. The term pro-life Dem has no meaning. They either sell out or just get shouted down by the pro-abortion members of the party.


59 posted on 03/20/2010 8:31:18 AM PDT by Truth is a Weapon (Truth, it hurts soooo good!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Old Retired Army Guy

Maybe we should tell the Stupak “gang” we will support them if they vote no. Raise money for them, help them get reelected. I think Stupak’s group are in the cat bird seat if they stick together.

If the Dems go Slaughter then it is war.


60 posted on 03/20/2010 8:32:50 AM PDT by Frantzie (TV - sending Americans towards Islamic serfdom - Cancel TV service NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson