Health Care Voting: All Eyes On Nancy Pelosi
Mar 19th, 2010 | 5 responses
America’s attention is rivetted to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, described as the most powerful woman in American history. As the date for voting on health care reform in House of Representatives approaches fast, can Mrs Pelosi, the House speaker, hold her party together? Is she up to the job?
Lexington presents in The Economist an interesting profile of Mrs Pelosi and describes the exciting few days ahead. “To simplify a gruesomely complex process: if House Democrats approve a health bill the Senate passed last year (plus a few tweaks), America will have something close to universal health insurance. The left’s fondest ambition will become law, and Barack Obama will suddenly look like a successful president.
Mrs Pelosi is arguably the most powerful woman in American history. There have been female governors, secretaries of state and Supreme Court justices, but only one female speaker. When she won the gavel, after the Democratic landslide of 2006, many saw it as a sign that the “marble ceiling” in American politics was cracking. Mrs Pelosi called it “a pivotal moment for all women”.
But others saw it as depressing evidence of the lingering power of political dynasties. Mrs Pelosi’s family are not quite Democratic royalty, like the Kennedys or the Clintons, but they are certainly aristocrats. Her father, Thomas D’Alesandro, was a congressman and mayor of Baltimore. Her brother was also mayor of Baltimore. She made her first public speech when she was seven, at her father’s swearing-in…
A recent Daily Kos poll found that only 22% of independents and 7% of Republicans view her favourably. But an effective speaker need not be loved, or think original thoughts. Her job is to round up votes. And at this, Mrs Pelosi excels.
She learned the family business by watching her father dole out jobs and her mother keep a file of favours owed. As a little girl, she answered the phone and told supplicants whom to call to get on welfare or into the city hospital.
Six decades later, she is a master of horse-trading. Although she is on her party’s left, centrist Democrats find her a good listener. She is far more disciplined than the House Democrats’ previous leader, Dick Gephardt, and does a better job of keeping her fractious party united.
Which is just as well, because health care is a tough sell. Not one Republican will touch it, so she needs 85% of her party’s votes for a bare majority. Some pro-life Democrats, such as Bart Stupak of Michigan, bridle because they think the Senate bill would use public funds to pay for abortions.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently held a press conference in the Capitol following a meeting with children’s advocates on behalf of comprehensive health insurance reform legislation. The advocates, many of whom brought young children with them, included Marian Wright Edelman of the Children’s Defense Fund, Donna Norton of Moms Rising, Dr. Judy Palfrey, President of American Academy of Pediatrics, Bill Bentley, President of Voices for America’s Children, and Lisa Shapiro from First Focus. Excerpts from the press conference:
What we’re talking about here is passing this bill. It’s a bill about health care, health insurance reform, it’s not about abortion, it’s not about immigration. If you believe that the law of the land is no federal funding for abortion, there’s none in this bill. If you believe that there should be no expansion or diminishment of abortion rights, that’s what this bill does.
The only reason, therefore, to oppose the bill is that you do not support health care reform. And we are taking a vote and I anticipate having the support of those who support health care reform and will not be deterred by any misrepresentations as to what the language does.
We see this as a health issue, as an economic issue, as an issue about deficit reduction issue, an entrepreneurial issue. If you could think of one thing that would make — that would be good for the economics of America’s families, that we could do right now, it would be passing health care reform — not only for the health and well-being of the family, but for their economic security as well.
If you could think of one thing that would help the federal budget as well as the family budget, it would be to pass health care reform because as the President says: “Health care reform is entitlement reform.” If you could think of one thing that would contribute to the entrepreneurial spirit of America where we could be competitive internationally and domestically because our business people — our consumers are not confined to a job because their child has a pre-existing condition.
Or that someone in the family has a pre-existing condition — that they could reach their aspirations, take risk, be entrepreneurial, make America more competitive—it would be to pass health care reform.
Meanwhile The CSM reports: “The Senate healthcare bill, with House ‘fixes,’ will reduce the federal budget deficit by $130 billion in the first 10 years and $1.2 trillion in the second 10, according to House leaders, citing a forthcoming report from the Congressional Budget Office.” More here…
5 Responses to “Health Care Voting: All Eyes On Nancy Pelosi”
“Which is just as well, because health care is a tough sell. Not one Republican will touch it, so she needs 85% of her party’s votes for a bare majority. Some pro-life Democrats, such as Bart Stupak of Michigan, bridle because they think the Senate bill would use public funds to pay for abortions.”
Apparently some pro-life democrats are so inept at basic reading skills that their mothers probably smoked asbestos while pregnant with them.
There are two kinds of pro-lifers – those who want to protect zygotes and fetuses, and those who just want to exercise power over “fallen” women. Stupak is the latter, and is certifiably insane and almost criminally narcissist for running around and sniveling over the unfair treatment he is getting. What a psychopath.
“Mrs Pelosi is arguably the most powerful woman in American history.”
Lexington usually doesn't write such crazy things.
“There are two kinds of pro-lifers – those who want to protect zygotes and fetuses, and those who just want to exercise power over “fallen” women.”
Axel…. That is the single-most ideotic thing I've ever seen you write. You're usually a very well-written and intellectually sound blogger. Not so in this case. How can you possibly know Stupak's heart and deduce that he stands against abortion simply because he wants to lord over women?
That would be similar to my saying that pro-choicers fall into two categories: those who want to live promiscuously and not worry about the consequence of their actions, and those who simply like murdering unborn children. Regardless of how I feel about the issue, that statement is unfair.
What people have to realize is that most pro-lifers feel that life begins at conception, and that ending that life is murder. It really is that simple. Pro-choicers, for some reason, can't seem to understand that, or refuse to.
“How can you possibly know Stupak's heart and deduce that he stands against abortion simply because he wants to lord over women?”
Because people have bent over backwards to ignore women's rights just to massage his prostate, and he is still weeping crocodile tears over “funding for abortions” – this suggests a fundamentalist incapacity to read properly and accept facts.
“What people have to realize is that most pro-lifers feel that life begins at conception”
Sure it is life. However, amny things constitute life. A zygote cannot be aware of itself, meaning it has no value, no protection should be extended to it.
Fetuses are, to a point, much too rudimentary to have self-awareness, individuality, self-awareness or, if you want to be speculative and “spiritual”, a soul.
Life begins at conception. Existence does not.
That is what pro-lifers don't seem to understand – that a human body without a brain attached to it is legally worthless, a pile of flesh. Stupak has no genuine feelings, he obviously must have some kind of cognitive short-circuit.
Axel may or may not be capable of understanding and appreciating it, but for Kathy's sake I posted links to some stuff by C. Everett Koop, who's tougher about (more opposed to) abortion than I am, so that she could understand the normal position of so much of the mainstream, opposed to unlimited abortion at will.
I fear Kathy actually may not have not only not learned, but not even bothered to read about it.
Axel is just being especially florid. We have to expect a raised level from everyone, the vote is so close…