Nancy Pelosi To Maddow: Bart Stupak Is “A Valued Member Of Congress”

video

by Glynnis MacNicol | 8:54 am, March 12th, 2010

» 10 comments

Taking a break from the “presumably dramatic” caucus on health reform yesterday, Nancy Pelosi sat down to talk with Rachel Maddow. The interview provided a number of interesting exchanges about both Eric Massa (whom Pelosi didn’t seem too eager to chat about) and Maddow favorite Bart Stupak. “Every bill is a heavy lift,” says Pelosi. “Let’s talk about someone who is trying to make it heavier,” says Maddow.

Maddow: Stupak says that the bill, as currently written, spends money on abortion. Is he telling the truth?

Pelosi: Let me say that I have the highest regard for Congressman Stupak. He’s a valued member of the Congress. The facts are these: There is no federal funding for abortion in the legislation.

And then Pelosi concedes that if he really wanted to Stupak could ostensibly read federal funding of abortion into the bill because there is a tax deduction for a woman who has a health insurance plan that allows for reproductive health services in it. Not exactly the resounding NO I think Maddow was hoping for…something that was sort of clear in her facial expression.

Clearly, Pelosi is not looking to alienate Stupak or anyone else (she hasn’t been able to pass all of President Obama’s ‘planks’ for nothing!) and when Maddow pushes her on Stupak’s ‘group of twelve’ Pelosi is eager to point out this bill is not about abortion. It’s about plenty of other things, which Pelosi describes well and convincingly (“up until now being a woman has been a pre-existing condition). But I’m not sure Maddow buys that it’s not going to come down to abortion and in Pelosi’s defense, when pushed, she does say she won’t let the bill be “hijacked” though she’s not specific on the ‘by whom’ part. Video below.

bart stupak, eric massa, Health Care Reform, Rachel Maddow, Stupak

Moderate

It looks like the overturn of the don’t ask don’t tell overturn has been thrown under the buss. Pelosi does not want to discuss snorkeling by gays in the Navy. Is snorkeling in the Navy anything like teabagging in the Air Force?
Azarkhan

On Nov 6, 2009 the House approved an amendment to the government-run health care reform bill that would strip abortion funding from it. An amendment from pro-life Rep. Bart Stupak received a 240 to 194 vote with one member voting present. (Non-funding for abortion has been Federal policy since 1976 when the Hyde Amendment was enacted)

On Nov 8, 2009 the House of Representatives passed it’s health care bill by a vote of 220-215, with Rep. Stupak’s support.

The problem has never been in the House or with Mr. Stupak. The problem has always been in the Senate, despite the fact that the Democrats had a 60 vote majority. To pass the House bill or any health care bill, the Democrats only needed 50 votes (since in any tie VP Biden would be the deciding vote). Yet they could not do it without resorting to backroom deals for various states and Senators.

Anyone who believes Ms. Maddow’s spin is a fool. Mr. Stupak was interviewed by Greta van Susteren last night were he laid out his concerns. For Mr. Stupak the main problem is that once the House passes the Senate bill and the President signs it, there is no guarantee that the Senate will strip out all the special deals or amend other parts of the bill to be in line with the House version.

Concerns he enumerated include cost containment, quality provisions for reimbursement of health care providers, and how to pay for the Senate bill. He also stated that House members haven’t even seen a final draft of the bill nor has there been any independent analysis to check the CBO scoring! This despite the arbitrary deadline of March 18 set by Pres. Obama for passage of the Senate bill by the House.

Mr. Stupak’s frustration, and I suspect Ms. Pelosi’s also, is not with abortion funding per se, but with the Senate Democrats and the President who have put enormous pressure on the House to pass a deeply flawed Senate bill.

Mr. Stupak’s interview is here: http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/
Olby Sucks

How does maddow know what the bill does or doesn’t say when it isn’t even finished? That’s right, 0(zero) wants to ram a bill through that’s not even finished!
marigrace

Rachel Maddow says;”Bart Stupak’s fifteen minutes of fame are over”.

Maddow’s fifteen minutes of sliming Stupak are over as well, because Pelosi flushed her toilet and some of Maddow’s crapola went down into the sewer line where it belongs. And then she had the audacity to bring some of it back up, in her commentary after the interview with Pelosi.

It was the obvious goal of Maddow was to draw Pelosi into her continued intellectual inept agenda of sliming Stupak. I am not a fan of Pelosi, but she was very smart when she moved the conversation away from Stupak and spoke about the larger issue, the health care bill as a whole.
silkworm

Once again, Maddow shows how exceptionally out of touch she is with the Washington Loop and how she is in over her head. A Rhodes Scholar with little common sense. Those type of people are easy to find.
ImNotBlue

Not exactly the resounding NO I think Maddow was hoping for…something that was sort of clear in her facial expression.

But I’m not sure Maddow buys that it’s not going to come down to abortion and in Pelosi’s defense, when pushed, she does say she won’t let the bill be “hijacked” though she’s not specific on the ‘by whom’ part.

Are you suggesting that Maddow is an ADVOCATE, and was pushing Pelosi for a certain response, because politically Maddow agreed with it?! REALLY?!

Well… I’m sure for equity sake, we’ll have plenty of Glenn Beck comparisons now. Maddow wanted Pelosi to say something bad about fellow Democrats, and was annoyed when she didn’t… much like when Beck wanted Massa to say something bad about fellow Democrats, and was annoyed when he didn’t. Isn’t that the argument we’ve heard this week?! I guess, to be fair, we’ll hear it again… right?

HA! Fairness.
felixw

“There is no federal funding for abortion in this bill.” This is why MSNBC has no credibility. What’s next? Maybe Maddow can have a debate on what the meaning of “is” is. When you manipulate words to try to hide the truth, you are practicing propaganda and spin.
WaterLoo

On a serious note, who wins the “Bat Shit Crazy” award between these two?
timzank

“WaterLoo says:
March 12, 2010 at 4:03 pm
On a serious note, who wins the “Bat Shit Crazy” award between these two?

Gotta go with San Fran Nan on the “Bat Shit Crazy” one. Maddow isn’t crazy, she’s simply evil. Nan? She’s nuckin’ futz.
WaterLoo

I’d have to agree with the San Fran Nan winning the “Bat Shit Crazy” award. How comforting is it to know this woman is 3 people away from being The POTUS? Get this LOON outta there