TPMDC
Pelosi: 'No Separate Vote' For Stupak...Or Anybody Else
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Share
Send to a friend!
House Democratic leadership has apparently told Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) to go take a hike--and they'll move forward without him, or any other anti-abortion Dems threatening to switch their votes from 'yes' to 'no.'
Just off the House floor moments ago, Pelosi told reporters there will be "no separate vote" on abortion or any other measure.
And Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), a leading pro-choice progressive, said they're moving ahead without him. "There's not going to be any deal made with Mr. Stupak...there's been no deal whatsoever. He's been told that his language is not going to be added to the legislation," she told me this morning.
Stupak has been threatening to vote against health care reform legislation for months if its abortion language isn't tightened significantly, and he's claimed repeatedly that upwards of a dozen other Democrats would join him if he doesn't get his way. That'd be enough to kill the bill.
Yesterday, though, Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV)--a Stupak follower--told reporters that the dozen is probably down to about six. And that may not be enough to force leadership's hand.
"We think we have the votes regardless, and we're going to be moving forward," Schakowsky said. "Yes. We do think we have the votes without him."
A huge development, if true.
Comments (62) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
AJM
March 20, 2010 12:22 PM
So now we will see whether the anti-choice forces are willing to save the lives of born Americans or not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smitallica
March 20, 2010 12:30 PM
Oh AJM. Why do you hate babies and Jesus?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sunnysteve
March 20, 2010 12:51 PM in reply to Smitallica
This bill directs 250 million dollars to prenatal care, which will reduce the number of women who now choose abortion because of medical complications. This bill makes no changes to expand access to abortion with tax dollars.
You seek to take advantage of leverage on this close vote to insert the debate over "pro-life" vs " "pro-choice" to further your "pro-life" position. Most of us have chosen to leave the debate regarding abortion out of the health care legislation. A majority of the "pro-life" Democratic representatives have already decided to vote Yes, for the same reason. The bill does not change abortion law or funding, but it does provide medical care that will reduce the number of abortions---a goal that almost all of us share.
Choosing this bill to battle over abortion is not a wise choice, and it is not a compassionate choice. I believe Jesus would choose compassion for the millions who will gain access to health care, including the many unborn babies and their mothers, who will get prenatal care.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smitallica
March 20, 2010 12:57 PM in reply to sunnysteve
I was being sarcastic. But thanks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 20, 2010 1:22 PM in reply to Smitallica
Most of us got that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
March 20, 2010 1:25 PM in reply to FreeRider
True. But Sunnysteve did make a great argument.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shortstop
March 20, 2010 1:26 PM in reply to FreeRider
In fact, all but one, I'd guess.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sunnysteve
March 20, 2010 1:56 PM in reply to Smitallica
You are welcome. I am an irregular reader here and did not recognize your name -- an argument for those of us who try to stay civil. I love a good snark, but some commenters give in to vulgarity, shouting and disrespect.
We must work hard to find common ground. That is why I am still proud to be a Democrat. It ain't always pretty, but, looking back, we have made amazing strides.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truth > spin
March 20, 2010 1:30 PM in reply to sunnysteve
So if I use taxpayer money to build a hospital and pay for all the fixed costs, and then allow abortions to be performed there so long as the variable costs such as staff labor and supplies are paid for by the person getting the procedure then there has been no taxpayer subsidy?
If so, then I'd like to come live in your house, and only pay my share of the grocery, water and energy bill. All the other costs you've absorbed are not consumed by me, so you won't be giving me anything right? I'm packing up now, so let me know where to send the movers...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sunnysteve
March 20, 2010 1:49 PM in reply to truth > spin
I am not analyzing current policy. I am making the point that this legislation does not change current policy, and it vastly improves access to medical care, which most agree will reduce the number of abortions.
Virtually all nations with universal health care have lower abortion rates than we do. That is not an accident.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truth > spin
March 20, 2010 2:24 PM in reply to sunnysteve
The bill does nothing to provide "access" to health care. I'll be honest, I don't even know what people mean when they say "access". I think it is code used to trick people into thinking the bill gives people heath care, when it doesn't.
Is anyone denied access to care now? Not as far as I know. Maybe they can't afford care, but if you wanted to say that then why not just say that?
And really, the bill does nothing to make care more affordable. In fact, it likely will increase the cost of care. Nevertheless, the bill will make insurance more affordable for some people as a result of the subsidy program. Others, mostly those in group plans, will have their premiums increased, but by a relatively modest amount.
So fair enough: why not just say people who can't now afford insurance but want it will have government support to buy it. People who don't want or don't want to spend money on insurance are going to have to accept having and paying for it for the greater good. Both are logical, true and defendable positions.
And yes, virtually all nations do have lower abortion rates than we do, and they also have vastly lower per person costs for health care. More importantly, they also have entire social safety nets that allow a pregnant women to consider keeping their baby if economic concerns are the major issue (evidence indicated that as many as half fall into this category).
Arguably a better policy for reducing abortions would be to spend the trillion dollars in this bill on new massive supports for low-income, single mothers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gonzo
March 20, 2010 4:35 PM in reply to truth > spin
Functionally speaking, what is the difference between not being able to afford care and having access to it?
Oh right, I forgot that teapartiers like Private truther of teh 101st Fighting Keyboardists don't really know what it's like to walk in another person's shoes, nor would they care.
We had to suffer through 8 years of your bullshit. You don't like it, leave.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truth > spin
March 20, 2010 5:03 PM in reply to gonzo
Actually, you had to suffer through 6 years of "my bullshit". I know a lot of people like to keep repicking the scab off the "last 8 years under Bush" line, but keep in mind that the Dems took control of Congress in 2006 elections and Obama has now been president for over a year.
I won't bother with the access vs afford argument. It's tiresome and won't matter. The Dems have the votes and can pass the bill.
Let's do it and let the Nov election and policy outcomes fall where they may. I am okay with that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
March 20, 2010 4:59 PM in reply to truth > spin
You are spot on about the "access" word. Please note as I so love to repeat, that faux progressives like my very own Senator Amy, actually believe that "universal healthcare is unrealistic". "Access" is the code that replace "universal healthcare". You can "access" healthcare if you can afford to "access" healthcare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
blkblt
March 20, 2010 5:12 PM in reply to truth > spin
Sure people are denied access to care. Anyone with a pre-existing condition can be and are denied coverage by insurers. Most ensurers consider domestic violence a pre-existing condition. So if you get beat up by your spouse you can be denied coverage no matter how healthy you are. My sister was turned away from the emergency room because she didn't have insurance and was not going to die right there in the waiting room. She died a few weeks later. So yes, people are denied health care in this country. As to raising rates. Increasing the pool of the insured, especially healthy young people who might be tempted to forgo insurance, will bring down the costs for everyone. Unless of course the insurance industry decides to use that extra money to line the pockets of their exectutives. After the last few years why anyone would trust corporate America to look out for thier interests is a mystery to me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truth > spin
March 21, 2010 2:52 AM in reply to blkblt
Hey blkblt, everything else aside, I am sorry for the loss of your sister. I sincerely am.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
midnight rambler
March 20, 2010 1:54 PM in reply to truth > spin
So by your logic (and Stupak's), we can't give government medical benefit payments to any facility that also provides abortions, because then taxpayer money is freeing up their own to subsidize abortions. Likewise, government employees should be banned from having abortions, because that means taxpayer money is paying for them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truth > spin
March 20, 2010 2:35 PM in reply to midnight rambler
If he were to be 100% consistent, yes.
It's not my view, BTW, I disagree with Stupak on this. I am personally pro-life, but I don't think think the government should be assigning the details of what the plans offer. If a procedure is legal and the insurance company thinks including it makes it a more attractive policy to sell, so be it. And if the government is going to help people buy policies, then that support should not be limited because of a plan's makeup. That said, I understand that is not a widely held view.
My main point is that Stupak's view is not inconceivable, doesn't mean he is corrupt and, really, who is to say he is wrong? He has been pro-life during every campaign he's run and on most of his votes in Congress.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tippy
March 20, 2010 3:49 PM in reply to truth > spin
I am a catholic Stupak does not speak for all Catholics he does not live his religon. He uses it.
Michael Moore had this to say about Stupak
Now, it would be easy for some to just pass this attitude off on his Catholicism -- he believes what he believes and you have to respect him for that, even if you don't agree with him. But it's not that simple. It turns out that Stupak has been living in a subsidized room in the "C Street House," run by the infamous right-wing Christian cult "The Family
snip:
C Street is where power, money, sex and religion meet. So am I led to believe that Bart Stupak lives in a brothel and belongs to a cult? He says he was just renting a room there. But that just doesn't ring true. Something stinks to the high heavens here, and Stupak sees no irony in taking his holier-than-thou position while living in a house that should be dubbed "Hypocrites' Hideaway."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/my-congressman-bart-stupa_b_506649.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truth > spin
March 20, 2010 4:03 PM in reply to Tippy
I know the C Street house very well. I've walked by it a million times and I have no idea what goes on in there or in his religious organization. Nor did I say he gets a pass because he is Catholic.
What I said is that he's been consistently pro-life in his campaigns and his votes. To argue that despite that being true, there must now be some sort of payoff or corruption causing his position is nonsense.
What Michael Moore thinks is irrelevant to me unless you are Michael Moore, since I am not able to ask you to clarify or defend a position being taken.
I am not saying that Stupak has any higher moral authority than Moore, just that there is zero evidence that the fix is in on this whatsoever. He'll take his vote and he'll take his lumps over it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
blkblt
March 20, 2010 5:05 PM in reply to truth > spin
the way I understood Rep. Stupak's objection was since money is fungible any subsidy from the government would free up private money to pay for abortion coverage. If that is the case, all government tax breaks or subsidies can free up money to pay for abortion or other uses that some find objectionable. Why has he chosen to single out health care?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
March 20, 2010 1:48 PM in reply to sunnysteve
Also under the bill 'well-baby' and 'well-child' care has no cost sharing (at least at my last reading). Meaning there will be no need to make the financial decision 'diapers' or 'six month check up'. This should cover things like vaccinations as well. Meaning that if your kid doesn't fall out of a tree and break a bone he might be able to get all of his care through childhood all at no out of pocket cost. And this is not an unimportant thing, I have had friends who had to make these kind of trade-offs, people who make just too much to qualify for Medicaid but so little than even a co-pay for a doctor visit might mean getting that much further behind on the light bill.
In my life I have been well-off AND insured at times, at other times poor AND uninsured. And the latter sucks. But at least I never had kids. Of the 31 million people who will gain access to public and private insurance through this bill a huge majority will be the working poor and their and most of the rest the chronically ill. (Which leaves you to wonder how many opponents of HCR have their WWJD bumper stickers on anyway.)
I can understand these clowns not wanting to pay for my health care, I am a grown man and responsible for whatever choices I made in 35 years of adult life, but you have to be pretty twisted to take your resentment out on little kids. Yet they do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
monel9959
March 21, 2010 12:06 PM in reply to sunnysteve
I thought that the conservatives were working hard to remove any connection of Jesus and compassion from their scriptures, except where it applies to rethuglicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
March 20, 2010 2:47 PM in reply to Smitallica
Anyone who tries to force their religious views on others deserves our scorn.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smitallica
March 20, 2010 12:30 PM
Oh AJM. Why do you hate babies and Jesus?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AS
March 20, 2010 12:36 PM
HELP CONNIE SALTONSTALL TO DEFEAT BART STUPID!!!!
Bart Stupak stated (in an interview on FOX News) that he does not listen to the nuns because these courage women and nuns are "lower" on the Catholic Churches' hierarchy.
Help defeat Bart Stupak in his zeal to kill reform by supporting his primary challenger, Connie Saltonstall.
Visit:
http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/24052
to pledge your support for Connie Saltonstall.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
666dorado
March 20, 2010 2:46 PM in reply to AS
i wonder what bart stupak's position is on abusing young boys. i wonder what the catholic heirarchy has to say about that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
March 20, 2010 5:02 PM in reply to 666dorado
He's probably opposed to abusing young boys. He has no problem with abusing young (pregnant) girls.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bull Schmitt
March 20, 2010 12:39 PM
Looks like the rubber is hitting the road now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheOtherWA
March 20, 2010 12:39 PM
Good. No one should give in to blackmail.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 20, 2010 12:43 PM
Nancy has never lost a vote. I don't think she'd be doing this if she couldn't deliver on the Democrats' top priority.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pol
March 20, 2010 1:14 PM
I love Nancy Pelosi. What a great leader she is!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rockridge
March 20, 2010 1:26 PM in reply to pol
But too much makeup *ducking*
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 20, 2010 1:40 PM in reply to Rockridge
Nancy doesn't wear very much make-up. I think you mean, too much botox and cosmetic surgery.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 20, 2010 2:01 PM in reply to FreeRider
I think she looks pretty damned good for 70 and is still vibrant and smart.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gonzo
March 20, 2010 4:36 PM in reply to lousgirl84
She's was smokin 20 years ago.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
de TOQUEville
March 20, 2010 1:16 PM
Kick ass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
March 20, 2010 1:23 PM
As Speaker, Nancy Pelosi has been getting done with her majority what Newt Gingrich only ever dreamed about accomplishing with his majority. Why do you think Rethugs despise her so much?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Zell
March 20, 2010 1:48 PM in reply to CityGuy
I don't think that's really true.
I mean, I agree that Pelosi has been getting a lot done; I'm actually quite pleased with her. But I don't think it's true that that's why Republicans hate her.
First of all, except for this bill, I don't think it has actually mattered too much that she has gotten things done. Most of the progressive measures that the House has passed have died in the Senate. So Republicans aren't going to be driven to hate her simply because of that.
Second, Republicans hated her immensely long before she was Speaker. So the fact that they hate her now that she's getting things done is not really good evidence for the claim that they hate her because she gets things done.
Again, to be clear, I'm quite pleased with her. I just don't think that the reasons Republicans hate her have anything to do with the fact that she's getting things done now. At worst, that would merely increase their hatred.
I think that their actual reasons for hating her are pretty much the same as their actual reasons for hating everything: inchoate, uninformed, with a vague sense of "enemy".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 20, 2010 2:06 PM in reply to Zell
I agree. I can't remember when they haven't hated her and demonized her. But she never wavered and has always stood up to them. It takes a very strong woman to fight off some of the very personal comments they have made about her and still stay classy - and she has always done that..
Go get em Nancy...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
March 20, 2010 2:12 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Louisgirl84: Are you and Zell also searching for the word "misogynistic"? It sure does seem to define some of the Rethug critics of Pelosi.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Zell
March 20, 2010 2:24 PM in reply to CityGuy
No. Well, I'm not speaking for lousgirl84, but speaking for myself, no, I am not looking for the word "misogynistic".
I am not saying that there's not a preponderance of misogyny on the right, but that's not why they hate her. Again, their misogyny would merely inflame their hatred.
They hate many people, essentially to the same degree. I guess it's tempting to say that they hate Pelosi because she's a woman, and Barney Frank because he's gay, and Obama because he's black, and Al Franken because he's a celebrity, and on and on, and sure, the fact that she's a woman certainly increases it for some of them, but at some point you've got to just back up a step and realize that these people just hate "the enemy". It's their defining characteristic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
March 20, 2010 2:32 PM in reply to Zell
Your point is well taken. They don't even consider their opponents to form an "honorable" opposition. In fact, they really do hate their opponents, as they don't consider them to be actual Americans. At least, not in any sense that matters (to them). It's sad that the Right has become this bitter and reactionary.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 20, 2010 3:43 PM in reply to CityGuy
I was gone for a bit so I am tardy in my reply. I wasn't looking for that word either although I am pretty sure it plays in the scenario. I have been around since she got into politics and I can't remember a time when they didn't hate her.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
March 20, 2010 5:22 PM in reply to Zell
All that & being scared shitless also of all that list & a whole lot more. Purely pussies at heart, even if it's a black heart.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nutter
March 20, 2010 2:07 PM in reply to CityGuy
I assume she lacks a penis and still several heads higher than them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
njlib
March 20, 2010 4:14 PM in reply to CityGuy
Why do you think Rethugs despise her so much?
As Speaker, Nancy Pelosi has been getting done with her majority what Newt Gingrich only ever dreamed about accomplishing with his majority.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
njlib
March 20, 2010 4:16 PM in reply to njlib
In other words, Jealousy
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Fifty Eggs
March 20, 2010 2:50 PM
I think that photo should have a caption. Something along the lines of, "You know, I would have thought John Boehner's balls were bigger than this."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Fifty Eggs
March 20, 2010 2:53 PM
Oops, didn't mean to be part of a run on male genetalia jokes.
What I meant to say was, "Go Speaker Pelosi! Keep up the good work and get 'er done!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dougom
March 20, 2010 3:06 PM
Stupak is just honked off because he knows his 15 minutes are almost up. And so much the better, frankly; I hope his idiocy survives only long enough to get him primaried out of office, and then he can fade into nameless history.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Watt Childress
March 20, 2010 3:21 PM
I'm assuming this article does not suggest that there will be no consideration of other healthcare measures following the vote on the insurance mandate package. Many people want to see a separate vote on Rep. Alan Grayson's bill that would allow any American who wishes to buy into Medicare at cost.
We deserve an up-or-down vote on the Mecicare buy-in.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
March 20, 2010 3:29 PM
The lady is good. Really, really good.
... that said, I'm getting nervous as hell. What a weekend.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tbhull
March 20, 2010 3:29 PM
The provision that rates would be regulated is not in final House bill.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/20/final-...
Any surprised?
So what we have is a mandate that everyone must the limited option offered by the same for profit companies not subject to competition while no one will reduce costs. What a solution!
The insurance company give away gets sweeter for those companies and the same old rising premiums will continue for those with insurance now with the law taking away any choice to to participate and 30 million more are now required by law to buy the offerings peddled by the problem makers.
What a joke.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tbhull
March 20, 2010 3:33 PM in reply to tbhull
better link
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/20/final-health-bill-omits-s_n_507063.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
apache
March 20, 2010 4:06 PM
As Rodney King asked, "Can't we all just get along?" Let's just all agree that we pass Medicare for all, let women do W(ever)TF
they choose to do with their bodies, get a supreme court decision that gives gays all rights given to straights, allow all vets kicked out by DADT to re-enlist at the same rank, and elevate me just one more level--to sainthood. No? Well, s**t!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
njlib
March 20, 2010 4:10 PM
NANCY IS AWESOME!!
(Caps intended)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
S v K
March 20, 2010 4:20 PM
Concerning Nancy Pelosi.....It seems so appropriate that the Majority leader who finally passed healthcare after 100 years is a woman. I say this with the utmost respect. It coincides with the nuns going AGAINST the bishops. I associate this with that awesome female quality of nurturing, and healing. I think it's great. Maybe this is what it took all along to pass healthcare.
SvK
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreemanW
March 20, 2010 5:21 PM
I will reserve final judgement until we see what receives Obama's signature.
I remain hopeful, but (justifiably) cynical in my expectation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bibimimi
March 20, 2010 5:54 PM
I'd personally would like 2c BS in a death match vs. 59,000 nuns wearing army boots--kinda like '300' only not nearly as gay.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 12, 2010 4:43 PM
I know the C Street house very well. I've walked by it a million times and I have no idea what goes on in there or in his religious organization. Nor did I say he gets a pass because he is Catholic.
What I said is that he's been consistently pro-life in his campaigns and his votes. To argue that despite that being true, there must now be some sort of payoff or corruption causing his position is nonsense.
What Michael Moore thinks is irrelevant to me unless you are Michael Moore, since I am not able to ask you to clarify or defend a position being taken.
I am not saying that Stupak has any higher moral authority than Moore, just that there is zero evidence that the fix is in on this whatsoever. He'll take his vote and he'll take his lumps over it.
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cris2per
August 23, 2010 11:43 AM
Hey everyone. Interesting idea for a blog. I have been checking out a lot of blogs and forums recently. Some are really informative some are entertaining and some are a real crack up. I've got to admit it, good job on this blog, I'll be sure to look in again real soon. olive oil packaging
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?