Stupak, working with GOP, trying to sink Nelson's abortion compromise

Politico ^ | 12/19/09 1:51 PM EST | Ben Smith

[BP2]

An aide to Rep. Bart Stupak (D. Mich.) coordinated opposition to a Senate compromise on the place of abortion in health care legislation this morning with the Republican Senate leadership, the Conference Catholic Bishops, and other anti-abortion groups, according to a chain of frantic emails obtained this morning by POLITICO.

The emails show that Stupak — who has so far remained silent on language accepted by Senator Ben Nelson (D. Neb.) and faces intense pressure from the White House to accept it — is already working behind the scenes to oppose the compromise.

They also demonstrate a previously unseen degree of coordination between Stupak and the office of Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

Stupak is the leader of a group of pro-life Democrats who say they’ll oppose the sweeping legislation if it uses government money to pay for abortion, while McConnell is firmly committed to killing the legislation. The fact that the two have made common cause against the Senates health care compromise will likely further infuriate Stupak’s Democratic colleagues in the House, and demonstrates his willingness to stop any bill that doesn’t pass his test.

“Guys - when will we see your letters of opposition to the managers amendment?? We need them ASAP!” wrote Erika Smith, a Stupak aide, at 9:23 this morning, less than an hour after the amendment had become available.

The email’s recipients included key staffers for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, National Right to Life, the Family Research Council, as well as Autumn Fredericks Christensen, aide to a top pro-life Republican Joe Pitts, and Lanier Swann, a McConnell aide.

A minute after Smith sent out her plea, Lanier reiterated it to the list.

“Nelson is telling people in the building he will vote yes. If there was any time to weigh in against this deal —- THIS IS IT,” Swann wrote at 9:24 a.m.

As of early Saturday afternoon, the groups had not released statements on the compromise.

Stupak, too, has remained silent, and Stupak aides, including Smith, did not immediately respond to questions about the email chain.

The manager’s amendment, which emerged after hours of negotiations between Nelson and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, stops short of the total ban on health insurance plans that participate in a new exchange system offering abortion coverage. Instead, it includes a provision that allows states to prohibit abortion coverage in the exchanges.

The amendment also requires that health plans that provide abortion services separate, for accounting purposes, private premiums and federal funds, and ensure that the federal funds don't pay for abortion services, a maneuver derided in the past by anti-abortion groups as a shell game.

The compromise paved the way for a Senate vote on President Obamas top priority, but the frantic emails this morning suggest the House may remain an obstacle.

[chilltherats]

Never trust a rat. Stupak is a rat. They have to prove themselves to the bitter end before I put .000001% of trust in one of them.

[mad_as_he$$]

Nice rant (well not really a rant but good explanation).

Excellent points and things that need to be said.

Merry Christmas to all at your castle.

[Dementon]

Well, I’m not actually sorry that Conservatives bother you. I just hope you’ll be happy at D.U., Huffington Post, or wherever you wind up.

The problem is that you have defined conservative so narrowly that hardly anyone fits anymore. You should be careful, you're on the verge of defining yourself out of existence.

[DoughtyOne]

Could you please link me to where I defined Conservative.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you. Hope you have a great Christmas and a nice week leading up to it.

[Dementon]

Could you please link me to where I defined Conservative.

Your response to JillValentine rather strongly suggested that you definition of conservative would be pretty much everything that she disagreed with about what this site has become. I could be wrong, but judging from what this site has devolved to I somehow doubt it.

[nomad]

You know,I`m quite ready to piss on all pro-life forces.They ARE the cause of it passing the House in the first place!So let me get this straight,for the abortion issue, their pet issue,they throw everyone else under the bus,never mind that these IDIOTS WILL BE betrayed by the rats,mark my words.So if it passes,I`ll consider them the enemy,no different than the leftists.I`ll never again support another pro-lifer again. Gullible,idealistic idiots make lousy allies.

[SeattleBruce]

DoughtyOne, thanks for trying to clarify your cryptic ode.

That’s more than can be said of redstateconfidential, who perhaps doesn’t have a chance to do so any longer (post 64 in this thread?) - at least he’s not made any posts today:
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:redstateconfidential/index?brevity=full;tab=comments

Look, perhaps you expected all of us to just ‘get you’ and you’re right, not everyone can understand us always, and certainly not everyone will agree with us.

You wrote “Today, as of this moment on, women should have the right kill anyone they like.” In your explanation you wrote: “Am I not trashing the stupidity of the premise that women should be able to kill the unborn?”

Why couldn’t you have written consistenly with your second sentence, which as you pointed out *doesn’t* single out women?: “I have been intrigued by the trail of little human body parts, leading to the feet of the leftists, their leaders, politicians, and judges.”

As it stands Doughty, most of the rest of your skreed, really seems to be a diatribe against a ‘woman’s right to choose’ - which is worthy to be blasted - but not against those ‘leftists, their leaders, politicians, and judges’, many if not most of whom are MEN.

So if you want to get into such a sophisticated romp as you attempted, that is to blast the pro-death credo of the left, next time I suggest you keep your targets in sight - all of them - MEN and women, and not just narrow down to one portion of the problem - that is the feminist movement (of which there are prominent men (like Alan Alda, et al)), and their call for a woman’s ‘right to choose’ - to kill a human being.

By using just one line at the beginning to address all, and then lowering the double barrels at women, or crptically if we ‘got you’ - liberal women in the feminist movement - you have failed at your efforts.

Again, thanks for your attempt at clarifying, but with all due respect it’s a shame that people have to be driven off the site because of a cryptic rant. Please consider that next time you decide it wise to shoot the rocket launcher.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

I understood what you meant on the first read. :-)

(not that you need my two cents worth)

[SeattleBruce]

The Pro-Life forces, put a wedge into the Democrat caucus in the House, and forced major compromises in the Senate. Now the Senate bill, putting in abortion restrictions and also having dropped the public option and Medicare debacle, may be opposed by the liberal wings of the D party in the House bill.

What if Stupak hadn’t passed? It would have split pro-life Rs and Ds and PelosLIE would have just thrown the Pro-life Ds under the bus (how many of them are there??) Then, once the bill came back out of the Senate, it would have had stronger abortion support in it, and it would have been easier to reconcile and pass it, than it will be now that Stupak and other pro-lifers have some amount of power in the House.

IMHO, the abortion wedge still exists to help defeat/delay this bill. I don’t think you can unequivocally say/claim that the pro-life caucus ARE the cause of this bill being where it is.

No, it is where it is because the American people stupidly installed socialist majorities in the House and Senate with a WH cherry on top.

[Cyber Liberty]

You’re supposed to post a vanity when you quit FR. Otherwise, you opus doesn’t count.

[nomad]

If she could have so easily thrown those prolife rats under the bus then, what difference does it make now? So all we get is a tiny phantom bone for the pro-lifers,but you really believe they still won`t throw them under that bus?Or have those formerly helpless prolife rats magically become important?Make up your mind,either they were superfluous or not.And just how would that have caused more Republicrats to have voted FOR it.

[DoughtyOne]

Okay, then lets look at what JillValentine stated.

Right out of the box, Jill keyed on a statement by RedStateConfidential.  For her, this was the straw that broke the camel's back.  What Jill didn't seem to understand, was that there was a 75% or better chance that RedStateConfidential read my post, thought it was too misogynistic, and was roasting me for what they percieved my mindset to be.

Here's the comment, "Maybe the Arabs are right about women after all..."  I didn't read that as a resounding endorsement of my comments.  I disagreed with it.  I made a response that made it clear I didn't think it accurate, without calling RedStateConfidential names.  I stated something to the effect that I found it interesting that the Left doesn't criticize the way women are treated in the Middle East.  I said it that way, because I didn't agree with the comment, but I wasn't sure how it was meant.  If it was supportive of me, I didn't agree with the premise.  If it was a slam at me, I didn't agree with the premise.  It wouldn't have applied in light of what my goals and tactics had actually been.

That did it.  Well, I'm not convinced it should have.  Someone abviously jumped to a conclusion here, and I am not sure RedStateConfidential didn't agree with Jill Valentine.  This may have been a misunderstanding.  I didn't agree with the comments, so Jill should have taken some comfort in that too.

Rampant woman-bashing, with women being blamed for everything from abortion (which was legalized by five male Supreme Court justices) to 9/11.  Who was being blamed for abortion in my post?  Women?  Folks, please read the commentary in post 78, that addresses a post I made that people took exception to.  Those who pushed for women to have the right to abort on demand, Leftists, judges, and politicans were blamed.  Women WERE NOT blamed.  People miscontrued the meaning of my post, and I've made that perfectly clear.  As for women being blamed for 09/11, what the hell?  Where has that been claimed, or is this just a toss out comment expressing frustration?  I don't agree with it.  I also don't agree that all women are to be blamed for abortion.  That wasn't my premise at all.

Vicious bigotry against Hispanics, with ignorant asswipes unable (or unwilling) to tell the difference between ILLEGAL ALIEN and U.S. CITIZEN WHO HAPPENS TO BE HISPANIC.  There aren't many people on this forum more anit-ILLEGAL immigrant than I.  I do however take exception to people lumping in all Hispanics with illegals.  I address it when I see it.  I have not seen vicious bigotry against Hispanics here.  I'm married to one.  My son is married to one.  My brother is married to one.  I would be the first guy to complain if I saw vicious bigotry, and I would ask Jim to remove it if I saw it.  I do not approve of racism and I don't want those views left on the forum to tarnish it's reputation.  It would seem to me that JillValentine could have adopted that same policy.  I know that Jim will not let racist remarks remain on the forum, if his attention is called to them.

Calling every sensible, mainstream Republican from Palin to Reagan a RINO and flaming anyone who doesn't support kooks like Tom Tancredo, Alex Jones, and Chuck Baldwin.  While there has been a bit of a flame war here over the last few days concerning something Palin said, the fact is it was objectionable.  Are people supposed to put a muzzle on it depending who says something?  No.  If they object to something, then folks should say so.  Since when do people call Reagan a RINO here?  People who criticize Ronald Reagan here have a longevity in these parts less than the half-life of a fruit fly.  Acting as if Reagan were trashed here as a normal course of business is not rational.  Acting as if Palin had been treated terribly here as a normal course of business also leaves the relm of rationality.  Many of the same folks who took objection to her comments over the last few days, are people who have supported her and continue to support her.  Very few have jumped off the Palin band wagon in perpetuity.  Folks have addressed that as a bad idea.  I have intimated as much, so that people could rethink their mindset.  Folks, the open discussion of issues and people pertaining to Conservative leadership, is precisely what this forum is all about.  Who thought a comment we disagreed with, wouldn't be addressed?  That's no reason to pack your bags and run off.

A stifling atmosphere of populist anti-intellectualism and knee-jerk hatred of science, with posters proudly wallowing in their ignorance and attacking anyone who has an actual education from an accredited university. Gore-bull warming is not BS because it's science, it's BS because it ISN'T science. Science is not the enemy.  The problem with this glowing defense of Science, is that we had to listen to crickets for years instead of loud oppostion to leftists, while the leftist scientists blew out the global warming issue to mammoth proportions.  Only in the last year or so, and very slowly at first, did scientists emerge who were willing to object to a propaganda onslaught that has seldom been eclipsed if ever, in the history of mankind.  Where were the sound scientists while Al Gore's movie was being shown in theaters and cable channels for years on end?  Yeah, I'm one of the people who takes scientists to task.  Frankly I'm quite angry about the lack of objectivity.  It was missing in action for decades.  If you want to call that knee-jerk, have at it.

Acting as if this is a manifestation of anti-intellectualism and a hatred of science is just plane whackey.  It was a manifestestion of people being righteously indignant, that they were left to twist in the wind while leftists operated in a vacuum, nobody of credential standing up and saying, "I object."  LMAO, if it weren't for the common "non-intellectuals" out here pushing back against the global warming lunatics, there wouldn't have been anyone doing it.  And of course, now they're the bad guy.  Hogwash!

Rabid attacks on anyone who recognizes the basic truth of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, the baiting and banning of posters who support said theory, and now the same crap against anyone who simply believes that the earth is billions of years old.  What this person wants us to do, is gobble up every edict from the pulpet of the church of science. (note, not capitalized)  Most of us believe in evolution.  What we don't buy is that the human race started as an omeba and progressed through apes to become modern man.  We rightly recognize that the belief man evolved from apes, takes as much faith as Christians express by belief in God.  The "scientists" I've seen address this issue, get angry when I say this.  I don't see that as a scientific reaction.  It certainly isn't based on reality.

This is a core belief of Conservatism.  Our rights are granted by our Creator.  If our Creator, does not exist, then the foundation for our rights has vaporized.

As for the age of the earth, I look on the claim that it is 4.5 billion years old and realize that will probably be redrawn in upcoming decades.  I don't pretend to have all the answers.  I do try to have a healthy dose of skepticism, when the same scientific community that once thougth the earth was the center of the universe, now tries to tell me what they think they know today is definately the gospel truth.  No, it is merely the most recent common theory.

Glorifying idiots who stoop to tactics normally used by the Far Left, such as Ben Stein and his Michael Moore-like propaganda movie, the jerkoffs in the Schiavo case who sent their ten-year-old kid to be arrested, and the pro-death extremists who bomb abortion clinics and shoot doctors.  I've seen a decent portion of the Ben Stein movie.  The comparison of him to Michael Moore speaks volumes.  I urge people to view it.  They can decide for themselves.  There are some chilling moments in that movie.  I think it hits too close to home for some folks, who don't have the intellectual honesty to face some of the things he presents.  Trashing him neutralizes their compunction to actually think and ask themselves questions.  As for the so-called 'jerk-offs', the kid was there with his parents seeking to prevent Schiavo from being unplugged.  That this could be addressed, just moments before lumping them in with people who blow up clinics and shoot doctors, is truly sad.  Is that supposed to be evidence of a scientific mind?

I don't support clinics being blown up.  I don't support physicians being shot.  I have seen some people act is if these were not problems, but I objected strenuously when I saw it.  If I see someone advocate illegal activity, I report it to the forum owner.  This is a law and order forum.  There's nothing to stop JillValentine from doing the same thing.

Militant rants against homosexuals that go far beyond a healthy skepticism of the liberal gay agenda and into true bigotry and hatred, with routine calls for pogroms against gay people.  Why is it that I don't run into the "routine calls for pogroms"?  Why is it I don't run into the true bigotry and hatred?  I hate to slap this subject matter back to reality, but homoesexuality is viewed by Christians to be morally wrong.  Despite that fact, folks generally address the activist homosexual agenda on point.  I do believe people get worked up and make intemprate comments at times.  If it goes too far, I try to address it.  If it goes way too far, I notify a mod.

A growing tolerance for increasingly vile anti-Semitism and 9/11 Troofery.  This is a bald-face lie.  Jim considers this a Christian site.  We have a common bond with Jews, in that Jesus Christ was one.  I will go for the proverbial throat of anyone who attacks Jews on this site.  I seldom have to do it.  Israel is defended here constantly.  If there is a policy issue, I stand squarely behind what I think is best for Israel, even if it's leaders disagree.  I think Israel gives up too much in the interest of peace, when the Palestinians give up nothing for peace.  The Palestinians are resoundingly trashed here, for their constant drive to destroy Israel.  We pan the idea of nationhood for the Palestinians because they are not intent on living in peace with Israel.  Anti-Semitism?  Bull s--t!

09/11 Troofery?  Just how much of that have I run into here?  Well, I can't remember the last time I saw someone try to back that.  I disagreed on point.  It was at least a year ago.

Screeds against capitalism and free trade from idiots who don't know enough economics to run a lemonade stand.  People say things because they haven't thought them out.  It's up to folks who coinsider themselves to be a cut-above, to set them straight.  That's what a person with leadership skills does.  They stand up to incorrect assumptions and speak truth.  They don't toss their duds in a suitcase and go marching off the forum in a huff, slamming the door behind them.

People putting their own personal, petty causes ahead of supporting our troops.  This is such bull excrement.  Participants on this forum don't support our troops?  Wow, how could this person be here so long, and have missed what this forum actually is.  Some of this is astounding.

Religious bigotry from the Talibornagain against Catholics, Jews, atheists, agnostics, moderate Protestants, and especially Mormons.  So people who are born again, are now referred to as "Talibornagain".  Now there's evidence of a Christian.  We can stop right there with the idea this person should be judging others.

The banning of an ever-growing number of thoughtful, intelligent posters who have been here for years, and their replacement with a bunch of drone-like, unthinking n00bs who love Lyin' for the Lord (TM).  I swear, if this isn't a DemocratUnderground screed, it sure would run a close second.  This is really beneath the demeaner a Conservative would find acceptable.  The absolute generalizations are nutz.

Simple policy debates and even prayer requests turning into circular firing squads - and creationist BS threads started by GodGunsGuts (AKA GotsNoGuts) turning into circle jerks when he calls his stupid little ping list over because he's not enough of a man to take a stand on his own.  It's a common practice for people of a same mind to ping folks to threads they know they will be interested in.  That's hardly evidence of evil.  As for spats, yes they pop up just about anywhere.  That is the human condition.  Go anywhere you like on the internet, and you'll see folks pop off at each other.  The adults try to calm things down.  People that can reason, will do it.  Others, and we'll always have them with us no matter where we are, won't.  So what.  The next forum you run off to, will have people doing the same thing.

To my FReeper friends, it's been fun. To the others...I will no longer take orders from inmates who have been handed control of the asylum. Mr. Robinson, please close my account.

Honest to goodness, this commentary causes me more sadness than you leaving.  If this is all you saw this forum to be, you should have left long ago.  Why would you remain here as long as you did?  I'm sorry for your pain.

[DoughtyOne]

I don’t mind that you disagree, and I’m not trying to be dismissive.

You wouldn’t have posted what I did. You would have posted something different. That’s your style. I support that.

This was my style, and I’ll accept that you think I failed.

Take care.

[DoughtyOne]

I appreciate it. I need every positive two cents worth I can get right now. LOL

Hey, take care...

[wildandcrazyrussian]

Sounds like you’re arguing with a liberal troll referred to (look it up!) as a “concern troll”. She is leaving because of some misguided comment by one person who forgot the “/sarcasm” tag? Hey, whatever.

[DoughtyOne]

Sort of looks like it doesn’t it. As you said, hey, whatever. Take care.

[SeattleBruce]

You wouldn’t have posted what I did. You would have posted something different. That’s your style. I support that.
++++++++++++++++

Style differences are one thing. IMHO, your comments were ineffective and confusing, and you left most women reading them wondering what in the heck you were trying to say. But other than that it was great. :)

Your subsequent clarifications have been helpful, but only extended original remarks that really, after your second sentence, only incompletely addressed the liberal feminist portion of pro-abortion, instead of addressing the comprehensive picture of pro-abort men *and* women.

In my view, that’s not a style difference. That’s a lack of adequate content and context.

[DoughtyOne]

Look, guy, I’ve tried to be generous and considerate despite our difference of opinion on this. That evidently isn’t good enough for you.

My comments were quite clear to many who read them. That’s good enough for me.

[Lazamataz]

You have called EVERY female Freeper a murderer

Well they ARE!

In the Library.

With the Candlestick.