Stupak Votes Nay, erhmm… Yea?

Bart Stupak and the congressional leaders are in a complicated mating dance. In a bold courting move this morning leadership sources leaked that the Michigan Democrat was a Yea. Not so quick, replied Stupak’s office. Coyly, he said, he’s still in talks and reviewing the executive order. Word back from leadership sources is that Rep. John Dingell, the dean of the House and the Michigan delegation, is working on bringing Stupak around and that they’re “on the fine print” of a deal. Stupak, a Dingell protege, was in tears when Dingell lost his House Energy and Commerce gavel to Henry Waxman last year. Health care reform has been Dingell’s top priority during his 54 years in office and, in fact, the House bill was named for him. If Stupak does finally vote for the bill, it’ll be thanks to Dingell’s persuasion.

Meanwhile, the protesters are outside and inside the chamber. Some protesters have been encouraging their brethren to sign up for tours of the chamber and whilst there stand up and disrupt proceedings. Thus far two have and were promptly arrested. The first time a man shouted, “Kill the bill,” prompting cheers from some Republicans. Democrats were immediately outraged, citing the sanctity of chamber decorum. “It’s dangerous to be encouraging these people inside the chamber,” Rep. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, told reporters afterwards. “It’s outrageous and appalling.” Soon after Rep. Mike Pence, the No. 3 House Republican, emerged from the chamber saying the protesters’ removal was “appropriate,” and “we will observe the decorum of the chamber throughout the day.” The chants of the hundreds of protesters below could be heard from the Speaker’s Lobby off the House floor and giddy GOP members took advantage of the House’s Eva Peron-style balcony to wave to protesters and hold up their own hand-drawn “Kill the bill” signs, provoking roaring responses below.

Subscribe to Jay Newton-Small on Facebook
Related Topics: abortion, arrests, bart stupak, health care reform, john dingell, protests, vote, Congress, Health Care, Republican Party
  • Latest on Swampland

    Image: Mark Halperin interviews Mitt Romney

    Romney Defends Bain Record, Hits Obama on Economy: ‘He Just Doesn’t Have a Clue’

    Mitt Romney lashed President Obama’s economic stewardship in an interview with TIME’s Mark Halperin on Wednesday, deflecting attacks on his years as a private equity executive and laying out how he hopes to take control of the economy as soon as he’s sworn in, should he defeat Obama in November.

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Image: Presidential candidate Mitt Romney

    Mother of Mitt: How Lenore Romney’s Failed Campaign Shaped the Presumptive Republican Nominee

    This week’s TIME cover story, “The Mother of the Mitt Campaign,” tells the tale of how Lenore Romney’s 1970 run for U.S. Senate may have made a bigger impression on the Republican presidential candidate than his years spent as the son of a governor. Mitt’s father lost his own presidential bid, but it was the lessons from his mother’s loss that are more instructive as Romney enters the campaign stretch.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Jay~
    While I am no fan of unruly behavior in the Chamber, is this really dangerous? If so, what precisely makes these displays dangerous? Is it these particular protesters who espouse an inherently dangerous message? Is it the GOP’s opposition to an administration-backed bill that is dangerous? Is dissent dangerous? Is it dangerous for Congressmen to acknowledge and approve of individuals who oppose a bill that they themselves also oppose?

  • gysgt213

    It was Barney Frank who called it dangerous not Jay. Having said that, there is the potential for all of this to go just a tad bit too far. We have seen that with other positions people support or oppose and it can get dangerous for a lot of different people. Some of whom who are there just to protect and serve, some of whom are there only to peacefully protest. You get a lot of fired up people and others who are more than happy to add fuel to it by making irresponsible statements which they refuse to be held responsible for and people get can it hurt.

  • Paul-no not that one

    They didn’t yell N1gger or F@ggot this time? And no spitting either?

    It’s heartwarming to watch the republicans mature before our eyes.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    I’m well aware of who made that remark. However, right after JNS quoted Barney Frank, she goes on to state that GOP members held up their own signs “provoking” the (apparently dangerous) onlookers. I’m just wondering if the tone of this piece suggests what I think it suggests, that JNS views these people as dangerous, as well. And, if so, why?
    .
    The point being, gunny, that insofar as what has transpired in the Chambers today, there has been no cause for concern, no threat of danger. People flashing signs readimg “Kill the Bill” is no more dangerous than Codepink flashing signs of “End the War.” I don’t think anyone calls them dangerous.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    PNNTO~
    ~
    Who are they? And when did they yell this?

  • formerlyjames

    Peaceful, civil protest is good. Every assembly of humans contains a share of uncivil, unhelpful, uncouth. That assembly outside the Capitol is more a social event than a practical protest. And it probably contains a larger than normal proportion of uncivil, unhelpful, uncouth, and little doubt in my mind, of the uniformed.

  • formerlyjames

    Stupak was basking in the last of his 15 min. of theocratic fame on c-span when the cameras went back to the floor debate. Pity.

  • stuartzechman

    neorationalist86:
    .
    Today is a big day for you Pro Life folks, your representatives got the Administration to bend over backwards by standing on principle.
    .
    You should at least be reasonably satisfied with that.

  • Ivy_B

    The films from yesterday are all over the internet. Try teh Google. They were on newscasts last night.

  • formerlyjames

    Speaking of theocracy, the allegedly closet homosexual christian David Dreier is pontificating now.

  • shepherdwong

    This is who far too many of the right-wing base are at heart and why whipping their sense of victimhood is dangerous:
    .
    http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/03/21/this-is-getting-scary/

  • Paul-no not that one

    Or even quicker look one post down, Neo.
    .
    Sorry for the delayed response-went out for coffee and then took 10 minutes to log in.
    .
    What a professional operation this place is.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    James~
    ~
    What precisley separates practical protest from mere social gathering? The intended agenda couldn’t have anything to do with it, could it? If, say, thousands of people gathered outside the Capitol in opposition to a supplemental aid package for Israel, you and I would both see that as a good thing. A legitimate protest. However, given that there would be absolutely no way in hell that the bill would be defeated, the protest wouldn’t exactly be practical would it? Would you dismiss that as a mere social event? My point being, James, that it appears that many people from all walks of life and political stripes jump at the opportunity to dismiss opposition as illegitimate when it does not conform with their beliefs, but are all too willing to pride themselves in opposition that they can support, nevermind the effectiveness of that. It’s all about agenda, it seems.
    .
    As for the uninformed, I think there are just as many uninformed people who support this bill as there are those who oppose it. The reason being, that there have been a ridiculous amount of versions of the bill in myriad Congressional committees, not to mention that the Administration’s explanation of the bill has been less than stellar. Plus, even journalists such as KT, who have been at the forefront of clarity on the mater, still are obfuscating with the near daily contradictorary posts. The public option is in. No it’s out. Well, maybe it’s in. No it’s dead. Wait, it’s been revived. I mean, who the hell can keep up.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    PNTO~
    One post down? What…formelyjames? Forgive me, but I’m not following.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    SZ~
    .
    I’m not dissatisfied. I’m indifferent, actually. I would have taken a much different approach to health-insurance reform, but, it’s of no matter to me, personally. I’m applying to Air Force OTS. With a little bit of luck, by the end of the year my insurance situation will be more than adequate.

  • Ivy_B

    These crowds got really ugly yesterday shouting the N-word at Civil Rights legend John Lewis as he walked by and “Faggot” at Rep. Barney Frank, one of only a handful of openly gay members of Congress.
    .
    Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/21/stupaks-a-yea/#ixzz0iqVXVu61
    .
    One post down = Jay’s previous post. If you go back there, the phrases are links.

  • carotexas1

    I tried to log in a while ago and gave up. Came back to try again and now I am logged in. Guess I will see if this post gets accepted.

  • carotexas1

    Stuart, I think it was to help save face for the Stupaks and the Bishops who knew the bill did not break current laws.
    I look for a post from Amy on why the President did this.

  • hellslittlestangel

    I find Stupak repulsive, but right about now I could kiss him.
    Now I understand that adage about legislation and sausage-making. After tomorrow, when I’ll enjoy the smiles on Ed’s and Keith’s and Rachel’s faces, I don’t want to hear about politics for a week!

  • formerlyjames

    Exiled, when there is no hope, no possibility to affect the outcome of, for instance, this legislation, then I would say it becomes a social event. Just a place to be and see, and be seen, point and laugh and have happy conversation with others of like mind (not that there’s anything wrong with that) but empty assembly so far as the point of meaningful protest goes. Little more than an athletic pep rally, a gang mentality display. Not all, for sure, but some of the crowd happy to hear racial or homosexual outbursts, which have nothing to do with the subject at hand, again, to emphasize my point that this is not a practical protest. What kind of people even want to be associated with such vile behavior? I would, but across the street, lol.
    ..
    Beyond that I find myself in the uncomfortable position of not being a defender of the bill. I think it is not a good bill. I wrote to my right wing representative that I supported his no vote, but not because I was a member of his gang. On the contrary, I am inclined to believe that it would be better to begin again, maybe hope that the stupidity of the experience of this would serve as a learning exercise as to how to not pass crappy legislation. But that won’t happen. The bill is going to pass. We’ll see what happens next. But back to the original point, those people outside the Capitol aren’t doing squat to help either side of the cause.

  • stuartzechman

    neorationalist86:
    .
    by the end of the year my insurance situation will be more than adequate.
    .
    LOL
    .
    Of course, you’ll have access to the fully socialized system we have in the United States, unlike the rest of us.

  • gysgt213

    “I’m just wondering if the tone of this piece suggests what I think it suggests, that JNS views these people as dangerous, as well. And, if so, why?”
    .
    I don’t think it suggests what you think it suggest. I think JNS quote some one and accurately described what else happen. Finally, my concern is not with the actual protestors. It with the people who make irresponsible statements knowing full well that there are people over the edge in any type of protest and then attempt to stand back and pretend they had nothing to do with the aftermath.

  • gysgt213

    Anybody ever figure out WTF is wrong with this blog?

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Staurt~
    And there is nothing at all problematic about that, in my opinion. As you probably know, though I rarely wade into the health-insurance debates, I have been a consistent advocate for UHC. My only concern, really, has been the personal mandates, which have serious constitutional issues. I’ve never been opposed to “socialized medicine” or anything else silly like that. I therefore, if received into OTS, will accept my government provided health-care with a free conscience.

  • hellslittlestangel

    Too many trolls, and troll-enablers.
    .
    Oh, you mean the problem logging in. Beats me, I haven’t had a problem (Firefox 3.6).

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    After having checked the links to yesterday’s regrettable and offensive displays, all I can say is this has dark, dark consequences for myself…and for many of you as well. For, if these tirades make the TEA movement a racist movement, then I must be an anti-Semite. It has long been a despicable tactic of the pro-Israel lobby to mark opposition to Israel as anti-Semitic, largely based on the eggregious misrepresentation of the motives of Israel’s mainstream detractors based on the bigoted commentary of some actual Judeophobic individuals. These stratagems that most of you repudiate, for they implicate you through your criticisms of Israel, are now being employed to delegitimize the TEA movement. So, I ask, what is actually wrong with this approach if you so freely employ it against your political opponents? I know it to be reprehensible conduct when employed by AIPAC, as I know it to be repehensible conduct when used against any broad group of individuals. What I am curious about is how you can rationize its use here and now, in regard to the health-care debate, yet repudiate it when it slanders your opposition to Israeli policies.

  • Ivy_B

    I seem to have my login problems solved, but this afternoon the posts disappear. Either I have a block of ads for TIME on a blank page with swampland.blog etc in the bar (brain freeze for proper name) or the Swampland page flashes on for a second, then goes totally white.
    .
    Time for a drink! Cheers.

  • Paul-no not that one

    Ha Neo even for you that was some comment.
    .
    You made YOU the victim. If there is one trick people on the right have mastered it is “poor me”.
    .
    Even by internet standards that was some fine navel-grazing.
    .
    Kudos.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    PNNTO~
    ~
    While I am humbled by your compliments, if all you got from my post was a sense of self-victimhood than I had you pegged all wrong. In case you did not pick up on this, which you obviously did not, the references to myself were entirely sarcastic. The point was that the strategy of discrediting a position based on the individuals who hold that position, or worse, based on a few individuals who hold that position is a tried and true form of propaganda, reprehensibly employed by AIPAC. I could be wrong, or course, but it certainly seems that that very strategy has been used to marginalize opposition to the health-insurance reform bill. You see, PNNTO, I am in agreement that the death panels and socialism cries are lunacy. I am aware that, naturally, some of the people opposing the bill do so reflexively out of nonsensical fear of government takeovers. I also admit that there are some people out there who will oppose any measures supported by the President, whether it be because he is black, or has a non-Anglo name, or what have you. It matters not. It’s shameful. With that said, though, it is equally shameful to group all opposition to the President or all opposition to the health-insurance bill simply because of individuals within that camp. Hold the individuals responsible, but do not discredit the positions of a massive segment of the American populace, many of whom oppose this bill on perfectly reasonable grounds. To do otherwise, PNNTO, makes you no better than AIPAC.

blog comments powered by Disqus