Is Bart Stupak Getting Massa’d on Health Care Reform Bill?
In an interesting turn of events, Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI) appears ready to vote in favor of President Obama’s health care reform legislation, despite the absence of pro-life provisions in the bill. Congressman Stupak authored a pro-life amendment in the original House bill and was unwilling to vote for any legislation that lacked pro-life provisions.
Why would Congressman Stupak suddenly abandon his opposition to any legislation that did not exclude funding for abortions? Perhaps we should examine the alleged ethical skeletons in the Michigan Congressman’s closet that, like the recently driven off moderate Democrat Congressman Eric Massa (D-NY), could break his career.
According to an expose’ conducted by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, Congressman Stupak benefitted from a sweetheart housing deal. Apparently, he rented a residence for only $600 a month on C Street in Washington, D.C. from a fundamentalist religious group, The Family or The Fellowship. Far Leftists have already begun to attack Congressman Stupak for this, claiming that there is some connection between his pro-life beliefs and his housing arrangement. Maddow said:
“So the questions remain tonight. Was Bart Stupak paying The Family rent to live at C Street? Was The Family subsidizing Mr. Stupak‘s rent which seems to have been well below market rate? Why would The Family be subsidizing Stupak‘s rent if he wasn‘t, as he says, a member of the group, when The Family admits that they subsidize rent for their members? And why exactly is The Family claiming to have no ties to the house when tax and property records indicate that it clearly does?
Bottom line here, as Bart Stupak tries to shut down health reform for an anti-abortion stunt that won‘t succeed but will make him famous, who‘s been paying Bart Stupak‘s rent in Washington all these years? Has he reported it? And why won‘t he answer questions about it?”
Is it possible that Congressman Stupak is caving to the progressives in his party and voting for a government takeover of health care without his anti-abortion conditions included in hopes of avoiding a fate similar to Congressman Eric Massa, who complained that recent charges of misconduct were driven not by ethics, but instead, by retaliation for his refusal to vote for liberal health care reform? You decide.
Filed under: National
Stupak might not be long for Congress either way, from the looks of it. Either he caves on the bill, in which case the voters will get him in November, or he stands against it and Rahmbo pokes him in the shower.
http://weeklystandard.com/print/blogs/stupak
Stupak says there is no deal, and he won't vote for the Senate bill with a promise that it'll be fixed later. Good news if you oppose Obamacare. Today, I would put the odds that Obamacare gets passed at 30%, since I don't see a pathway to 216 for Pelosi without Stupak's 12 member bloc, and I haven't heard any procedure that could work for the kind of compromise that Stupak wants, but who knows what they could come up with?
Stupak did manage to draw a primary challenger today, but I'm sure that's just a random coincidence.
The overarching point here seems to be the amazing lengths to which the Obama administration and their goons in the House Democrat leadership will go to punish their enemies.
How much longer can this stuff persist before there's an open revolt in the Democrat caucus?
The question here is whether or not the Dems are going to "pull a Massa" and try to blackmail Stupak, as Massa claimed they did with him. While there is certainly no telling whether it's true or not, it definitely raises questions about how they will twist his arm to make him vote in favor of the bill, despite the absence of anti-abortion language. They've made it clear they will pass it at any cost. And besides, they don't like those Blue Dog centrist Democrats anyway. If they could rid their party of him and a few others while still holding a majority, they will be able to redirect their party platform to the Left and with more progressive leadership, enabling them to pass health care reform (or other huge legislation) with fewer hurdles.
The irony here (not unnoticed by the Left) is that Rahm was the DCCC chair who got most of the "Blue Dogs" elected in 2006. While Howard Dean (then the DNC) chairman) and others wanted Democrats to focus on a consistent national message, Rahm wanted a congressional majority at any price. The result is what the Democrats have now — a majority in numbers but not on issues. There is no question that Rahm's job is on the line right now. If Obamacare doesn't pass, Rahm is out and his career is over.