This week’s National Journal poll of political bloggers asked “Would Democrats be helped or hurt politically if Congress enacts health care reform legislation containing abortion restrictions similar to those passed by the House?” On the Left, 79% said “hurt,” while the Right was fairly closely split between “helped,” “hurt,” and “not much impact.” I voted for “hurt,” but thought it was a close call: “In pro-life districts, it’s a tremendous boon to Dems who voted for the Stupak amendment, proving to voters that the local Dems are not controlled by the party’s bicoastal pro-choice leaders. In pro-choice districts, however, Stupak’s effects on abortion coverage in private insurance may make a lot of people very unhappy. On the whole, a net loss for Dems because Stupak is a huge win for the pro-life side, which is a bad long-term sign for a party which, at the national level, is officially pro-choice.”
Question two was “In light of the off-year election results, what’s the bigger political priority for the Democratic/Republican Party right now?” Eighty-six percent of the Left said that motivating the base should be the biggest Democratic priority. Sixty-seven percent of the Right said that the biggest Republican priority should be winning independents. I volunteered the Republicans need to do both: “As C.S. Lewis once remarked about the faith vs. works debate: ‘It does seem to me like asking which blade in a pair of scissors is most necessary.’ Winning parties motivate their base and win independents — as McDonnell and Christie both did.”
Crunchy Frog says:
Without the Stupak amendment, the whole bill fails miserably, which would be disastrous for the Dem leadership. How could its passage be considered anything other than “good” for the left? Even if it falls under the category of Necessary Evil, it was still necessary.
I still don’t think the bill makes it out of the Senate, however.
Q2 (Lefty Edition) — good luck motivating the minority/youth half of the base without Obama on the ballot. They’ve already lost the indies for the near future. If the Republicans don’t epicly screw up a good thing (which is by no means a certainty) 2010 could be a repeat of 1994.
On the Right, as long as the focus stays on getting solid, fiscally conservative candidates (no squishy RINOs need apply) they should be in good shape. Unlike the D base, the R base votes, and needs to be paid attention to.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 1:12 pmMartyA says:
I still don’t understand why the Republican National Committee and all Republican members of Congress have not already drawn a line in the sand and taken a solemn oath to not submit any earmarks, secret or other wise. Earmarks are nothing but bribes and payoffs to Congressional friends, relatives, golfing buddies and supporters. The dems can’t live without them. We have one more budget cycle before the next election; what better way to make a sharp distinction between the good guys and the crooks?
Quote
November 13, 2009, 1:20 pmOren says:
The most fervent pro-choice Dems are also the most in favor of the health care bill. Pelosi and Reid should just throw down the gauntlet and dare them to vote against the final bill because of Stupak, they have to fold. How could they go back to their (overwhelmingly left) districts and justify killing the bill because of abortion funding?
Their opposition is, and always was, a bluff.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 1:26 pmEH says:
Isn’t it the prevailing wisdom that every development is bad for Dems?
Quote
November 13, 2009, 1:27 pmgeokstr says:
The Stupak amendment was a trojan horse, designed solely to get enough moderate dems to barely pass the bill. Now they can claim to their constituents that they’ve pulled abortion funding out of the bill.
But it has still to go through myriad processes where tons of little understood amendments will be added, even before it gets to the “reconciliation” procedure, where anti-abortion legislators will no doubt be excluded.
But let’s say that this abortion of a bill gets to the Prez for signature with abortion still excluded. So what?
The left knows that with a couple hundred new regulatory agencies added by the bill, plus the existing regulatory agencies, plus potential future separate legislation, plus a judiciary packed with sympathetic judges, how long will it be before abortions are covered anyway? I’ll bet the pro-abortion groups like NARAL are already on board, told to make a lot of noise as if they are outraged. This gives the dems cover until after the 2010 elections, so that abortion coverage can be slipped in somewhere, somehow, after that.
It’s no different than that showboating they did when the dems all voted to supposedly “defund” ACORN. Maxine Waters has already set it up to pack a key board in the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency that will allow ACORN right back in.
How Dems outmaneuvered GOP on ACORN
They were willing to make it look like they were throwing them under the bus for PR purposes only, knowing full well that the efforts to start to reverse this so-called “defunding” through the back and side doors would start immediately anyway.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 1:44 pmJoseph Slater says:
Barring some huge unforeseen event, the 2010 elections are going to depend on how well the economy is seen to be doing. I think that’s always been clear.
Having said that, I think that in off-year elections, parties can be more successful “running to the base” than in general election years. It might be a bit tougher for Dems to run to the base, since many of the House seats that could flip are in the “purple — formerly red” areas that might not like a fire-breathing lefty.
Oh and Geokstr, I certainly hope you’re right re the Stupak amendment.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 1:53 pmpc says:
1) Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. — $122,804,900
2) Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala. — $114,484,250
3) Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo. — $85,691,491
4) Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. — $76,899,425
5) Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss. — $75,908,475
6) Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska — $74,000,750
7) Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa — $66,860,000
8) Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. — $53,133,500
9) Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. — $51,186,000
10) Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii — $46,380,205
Six out of the top ten pork barrel senators are Republican. Facts have a liberal bias.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 2:40 pmgeokstr says:
Most do not.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 2:59 pmzuch says:
Would the RNC (or Cantor and Gingrich) be more favourable to the bill without the Stupak amendment?
Cheers,
Quote
November 13, 2009, 3:53 pmPatHMV says:
MartyA... many rank-and-file Republicans wonder the same thing.
The reality is that they bring in votes and campaign contributions, a lot of both. Neither side sees a comparative advantage in forswearing all of it. There are more factions of the GOP who oppose them and want them gone entirely than there are factions in the Democratic Party, I think, but most members of Congress have determined that they get more votes, in their district, by bringing home the pork there than they lose.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 4:27 pmRPT says:
Off-year elections:
Governors: 2–0 Republicans.
Congress: 2–0 Democrats.
Looks like a wash. By the way, what is the GOP/conservative position on “government run casualty insurance”?
Quote
November 13, 2009, 4:37 pmVolokh Groupie says:
What’s happened to Marci Hamilton? This might be the worst argument I’ve ever read and I’m an atheist!
The Worst Findlaw Article Ever.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 5:13 pmVolokh Groupie says:
pssst. here’s 11 through 20...facts don’t have any bias, partisans do
11) Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. — $39,228,250
12) Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. — $36,547,100
13) Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt. — $36,161,125
14) Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. — $35,577,250
15) Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa. — $27,169,750
16) Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. — $26,628,613
17) Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. — $25,320,000
18) Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis. — $23,832,000
19) Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. — $21,952,250
20) Former Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. — $19,588,625
Quote
November 13, 2009, 5:27 pmDave N says:
RPT,
Did you also note that the Republicans also increased their number of seats in the Virginia Legislature; won the 2 down ballot positions in Virginia; and won county races in New York State in areas that went heavily for Obama.
So, if you are merely spewing talking points, good for you. If you actually think that the 2009 off-year election was a draw, then you are delusional.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 5:45 pmCrunchy Frog says:
You can’t polish a turd.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 6:50 pmBruce Hayden says:
I suspect that this rating is a bit old — last I knew, Specter had jumped parties, giving the Democrats a solid 11–19.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 10:08 pmtherut says:
One thing this debate about abortion has done is open the eyes of this employer. I had no idea some private insurance covered elective abortions. I wonder how many other employers are checking and making changes if needed. Never occured to me that I might be paying for something I find morally repulsive.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 11:24 pmArthurKirkland says:
I believe earmarks are customarily apportioned roughly evenly between the parties, with perhaps a two or three percent edge to the party in power. Jousts concerning which party is more culpable concerning earmarks seems pointless.
Quote
November 14, 2009, 1:55 amArthurKirkland says:
This could instigate quite a race to the bottom. One employer denies coverage for abortion (or maybe birth control pills). Another shaves costs by arranging a policy that disclaims coverage for any injury sustained while hunting . . .or involvement in any activity that discriminates against gays (no coverage for an injured Boy Scout). An employer could deny coverage with respect to medical care provided by any facility that does not perform abortions. Another employer might dislike circumcision (although anyone is free to buy as many circumcisions as desired) . . . or tattoos (no coverage for related infections) . . . or extramarital sex (if you have a heart attack in the saddle, be sure it’s an employer-approved saddle).
Quote
November 14, 2009, 2:15 amgeokstr says:
Absolutely, because the whole stupid bill likely doesn’t pass at all without it. Can’t you read? It passed by two stinking votes, one of them a liberal Republican. It took Stupak to buy off a lot of Blue Dogs.
And on the odd chance that Pelosi could force enough dems to vote for it anyway without the Stupak, a whole lot more freshman dems would be shaking in their boots come November 2010, and if you think the conservative base is getting energized now, you would not have been happy at what might have happened with a Stupakless bill.
But be of good cheer. You won.
Quote
November 14, 2009, 8:08 amVolokh Groupie says:
I think the slippery slope you’re suggesting is a little muddled here. Not covering what are strictly additional medical procedures isn’t necessarily a bad thing. For example, needing to buy supplemental hunting coverage or tattoo coverage may be a good thing as it probably isn’t commonly used by most patients and it may cut some unnecessary costs from the high premiums we see.
However, things like denying coverage at places that don’t perform abortions are unlikely to be an analogous case because those are strictly politically based decisions and likely money losing decisions (this scenario that you’ve suggested is really going much farther than not cover elective procedures like abortion, this is akin to allowing no coverage at places that do perform abortions).
In any event, we’re talking about private organizations and the government choosing not to pay for these additional procedures for individuals. In the case of the government its understandable to err on the side of providing only the most basic medical treatments (indeed this would be one way of cutting the healthcare bill’s costs). In the case of private companies, choosing certain plans with these limitations will be met with the same consequences all the other decisions companies face when they try to hire employees in the market. Any such race to the bottom will likely make a company less attractive to employees and will serve as a disincentive to make such decisions.
Quote
November 14, 2009, 2:05 pmVolokh Groupie says:
I agree, that was my point with that post. Neither side has a monopoly on truth, facts, corruption, etc.
Quote
November 14, 2009, 2:07 pm