The only leopards that change their spots are those who encounter the contents of paint cans

[Stinky The Clown]

People like Stupak didn't suddenly come around to support the bill. They were threatened by House leadership. And they need to continue to be threatened by a pissed off electorate. Without him, the bill would have been better than it was and we wouldn't have to get that executive order hardening the legal restrictions on women's control of their own bodies.

The 34 who voted against this bill differ from Stupak only to the degree that they were able to withstand the threats of leadership longer than a few others.

Blue Dogs will always be Blue Dogs, they will always be obstructionist, and they will always be reliable support for repubicans.

We have Blue Dogs top to bottom. They are a problem and will continue to be a problem.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Some Dem Marylanders opposed the bill! nt

[Stinky The Clown]

2. Yes they did.

They're odious people, too. And they have odious supporters.

We have lots of work to do. Lots of checks to write.

[Captain Hilts]

3. We need a letter writing campaign asking when they're giving up their govt-sponsored HC. nt

[HereSince1628]

4. ISTM Legislators in the minority are naturally obstructionist

When the majority is a coalition including minority viewpoints isn't it natural to experience some of the coalition members as obstructionists as the minority does the only thing it can to win concessions--withold their support?

[NNN0LHI]

5. Stinky I think there is more to this than meets the eye

Lets say we would have gotten universal health care or even a public option.

The problem I see is between Roe v. Wade and HCR with the Hyde Amendment attached.

I am thinking that any public program could not constitutionally follow the Hyde Amendment and deny paying for someone who needed an abortion.

So where does this go? To the Supreme Court. Seems to me because of this conflict they would have to rule either Roe v. Wade or HCR with the Hyde Amendment was unconstitutional.

Which could lead to the repeal of either Roe v. Wade or HCR. It would seem like one of them would have to go. Because they conflict. Either way we would lose.

I have been thinking about this for a few days and am not sure I have expressed this correctly?

But do you understand what I am trying to say? I think this is why the public option was not possible.

Don

[Stinky The Clown]

8. Don, I *do* understand what you're saying

This will be litigated to the Supremes on many levels.

I think Roe will stand.

[Lerkfish]

6. he was appeased, not threatened. there is a difference.

the executive order was the carrot, not the stick.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. I'm not so sure about that.

I think he was threatened with political scrotum removal by our "sweet granny" Speaker. The EO was a quid pro quo.

[Lerkfish]

9. you say "quid pro quo" I say "appeasement"

the result is the same.