Patterico's Pontifications

12/8/2009

ObamaCare: Nelson is Stupak all over again, but possibly worse

Filed under: General — Karl @ 7:55 am



[Posted by Karl]

Sen. Ben Nelson’s pro-life amendment for ObamaCare — based on the Stupak amendment that passed in the House — is generally being portrayed as a big showdown that threatens passage of the Senate bill.

Don’t bet on it.

Nelson has said he would join a GOP filibuster of the bill if strict abortion language is not adopted — but he always left himself wiggle room to accept less than the Stupak amendment.

No one seems to think Nelson’s amendment has 60 votes, though Sen. John Thune thinks it may get 50 votes. Thus, it is important to understand why the Nelson amendment needs 60 votes in the first place.

Nelson actually has two options. He could push his amendment, in which case his fellow Dems would have to mount a filibuster. Senate debate on the bill would grind to a halt. The other option is that Nelson could seek unanimous consent to bypass a cloture vote, but withdraw the amendment if it fails to get 60 votes. This has been the procedure for the amendments debated so far.

Thus, if Nelson really wanted to demand the Stupak language — and was willing to block the bill to get it — he could do so Tuesday. However, all of the press coverage, with its talk of the amendment not attracting 60 votes, suggests Nelson is not going to block the bill to get the Stupak language.

So what is the Nelson amendment really about? Sen. Tom Coburn probably has it nailed:

Even if the amendment goes down as expected, Coburn predicted Reid would be forced to include provisions similar to the Stupak amendment in the final bill via a manager’s amendment containing numerous changes agreed to by the Democratic caucus if he hopes to win 60 votes.

Reid is holding a vote on the Nelson amendment to provide Democrats on both sides of the abortion issue with political cover so they can say they fought for their principles, Coburn said.

“They’re going to allow a cover vote,” Coburn said, “so everybody can stake their position [and] say, ‘Well, I can’t control the manager’s amendment.’”

The language in the manager’s amendment, however, may well be less — a lot less — pro-life than the Stupak language. Moreover, it is possible (if still unlikely, given the size of the bill) that the manager’s amendment will be the de facto House-Senate conference committee, with the House then accepting the Senate bill in its entirety.

All of which ought to raise questions on the Right. For example, why is Nelson — a Democrat — the one offering the Stupak language? Where are the demands from supposed pro-life groups that Nelson not merely offer the amendment, but force the pro-choicers to filibuster it? The situation looks a lot like the Stupak amendment vote in the House, which provided CYA to faux-life Democrats in return for the temporary illusion of a victory by anti-abortion interest groups. Senators of all stripes get good marks on the scorecards of their favorite interest groups, while the takeover of the US healthcare system proceeds merrily along. Those already questioning the Senate GOP’s strategy on the bill can add those questions to their list.

–Karl

20 Responses to “ObamaCare: Nelson is Stupak all over again, but possibly worse”

  1. Reid and the WH will just offer enough graft and bribes to make any recalcitrant Senators sign on in the end. Surprise.

    Dmac (a964d5)

  2. It’s all about the game, and not about standing on principal.

    Icy Texan (b8407a)

  3. Eek! “principle”

    Icy Texan (b8407a)

  4. we are so screwed…

    sam (1a8310)

  5. we are so screwed…

    sam (1a8310)

  6. Its probably for the best. Even if this was a voting issue for me (its not), the Stupak amendment — even if it gets passed — will likely be struck down by the Supreme Court based on the Plyer v Doe decision (the government cannot provide benefits in a discriminatory manner).

    Sean P (4fde41)

  7. Comment by Icy Texan — 12/8/2009 @ 9:28 am

    And would you stand with the Senate GOP if they were to “stand on principle,” as you define it? I have plenty of experience which suggest you, and others, would not do so. It has something to do with the GOP bringing personal shame to you.

    Karl, I have to ask: Does the Senate GOP have any moral authority to try “Unanimous Consent” and other delay tactics? I mean, Look: We know Obamacare polls @41% approval. We also get the impression that a Jim DeMint gumming up the works with “Unanimous Consent” would do even worse.

    We know this because Jim DeMint apparently has a 44% approval rating: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2009/12/sc_poll_demint_safe_for_now.html. Then again, you’d be hard-pressed to find a politician that is not from the Dakotas with an approval rating above 60%.

    Brad S (9f6740)

  8. I think sam is correct with respect to the we are so screwed.

    Where is the hopefulness?

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  9. Comment by happyfeet — 12/8/2009 @ 1:49 pm

    I ask you, happyfeet: What moral authority do conservatives have to stop Obamacare?

    Brad S (9f6740)

  10. the democrat leadership has discovered that they can spend trillions of dollars. Of course they can buy whatever and whoever in DC they want to buy.

    If they offered Tom Delay enough money, I’m sure he’d run for office for the Health Care Single Payer party. That’s how these people work.

    My taxes paying for abortions is a sick thought, but this bill is fundamentally about Obama and Pelosi and an army of bureaucrats taking over my family’s health care. this is a dog and pony show, so that the right can pretend it won something when they deal with a horrible new entitlement that isn’t quite as horrible as originally imagined. And when the bureacrats pay for abortions anyway, by court order or administrative fiat, who will stop them? Obama? Sotomayor? Pelosi?

    We are fighting the wrong battle. If we can’t stop this bill, we’re in for a lot of problems.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  11. Comment by Dustin — 12/8/2009 @ 1:56 pm

    Even Rush Limbaugh has dialed down his rhetoric on Obamacare. Time to stop playing Horatio at the Bridge. Time to start joining the real world in finding solutions to clean up the mess that this bill makes.

    Brad S (9f6740)

  12. Even Rush Limbaugh?

    I’ve never listened to his show for more than ten consecutive minutes, so forgive me for snorting.

    You say I’m not in the real world… what does that mean? did you just feel like attacking someone today? I don’t mind that much, but your comment contributed nothing to this discussion. You think I am too upset about this bill, but that it will create a mess we need to develop solutions to fix.

    I don’t really understand what you’re saying. It’s like Frum. There are all these problems, but you want to tell people to complain more civilly. Not that they aren’t being civil, but you’re still going to tell them.

    How queer.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  13. Mr. S I think the moral authority what conservatives have is found in their desire to prevent the enslaving of our countrymen to a soul-crushing third world dirty socialist health care scheme what is designed not to further health but to expand the power of the state and diminish the worth of the individual.

    Brian Roberts is a dirty whore.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  14. Brad S likes to drop by and tell people what they should think.

    JD (b0bd4f)

  15. Nelson’s anti-abortion ObamaCare amendment goes down.

    The vote was 54/45

    Neo (7830e6)

  16. The motion to table was 54-45.
    The only bright spot was Casey (D-PA), Nay

    Neo (7830e6)

  17. The bill is grinding along with no enthusiasm. The final vote will be the moment when the Republicans will look at Blanche Lincoln and say “Bye, bye Blanche.”

    Maybe they would rather fight the election with the bill law. The actual health care provisions don’t start until 2013.

    Interestingly enough, Chelsea Clinton is marrying Marjorie’s son.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  18. #7 – Brad S

    And would you stand with the Senate GOP if they were to “stand on principle,” as you define it? I have plenty of experience which suggest you, and others, would not do so. It has something to do with the GOP bringing personal shame to you.

    — If your question is (and who knows what the hell your question really is?) Would I stand with the GOP if they stood on principle and voted against Obamacare because of the support for abortion that is included within it? even if doing so threatened their popularity & bids for re-election?

    Yes.

    I’m not a member of the GOP; the “Icy” in Icy Texan stands for ‘independent conservative’ (IC). But while I’m not a member, I can’t necessarily think of a way or an instance in which the GOP has brought “personal shame” to me. Care to elaborate on your theory, Professor S?

    Icy Texan (8b985a)

  19. Brad has been dropping the same comments at HotAir.

    The notion of politicians having “moral authority” is amusing in general. But the notion that the GOP would pay a big political price for stopping an unpopular bill is also pretty funny. The “Party of ‘No'” has seen its standing on the generic ballot climb since Inauguration Day and just elected Governors in VA and NJ. And DeMint seems to be in okay shape, as I don’t see the embattled DNC investing much in defeating him.

    Karl (404c05)

  20. […] debate always seemed largely like an exercise in CYA (and scorecard politics), both as to the Nelson amendment and the Stupak amendment in the […]

    Patterico's Pontifications » ObamaCare: Will Nelson buckle? Yes, he will! (e4ab32)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1219 secs.