Stupakery?

At some point last night, after a Healthcare Reform celebration dinner that spanned three different establishments of fine dining, I got to reflecting on the Stupak charade. Boiled down to its essentials, here’s what Stupak did. He fabricated an issue entirely without merit, recruited a gang that couldn’t think straight, licked his pencil and wrote up a nice little ransom note, and then moved into the klieg lights and engaged in some real high-profile grandstanding for days, only to fold lamely at the end in exchange for what no one can really pretend with a straight face was any real concession at all.

And the damnedest thing, of course, is that that’s exactly what Stupak did back in November, when the House version of the heathcare bill came up for a vote.

In November, the face-saving non-concession Stupak embraced was an agreement that he would be allowed to bring up an abortion amendment for a vote, so that it could be duly voted down. Now, four and a half months later, he called off his charade in exchange for an agreement that President Obama “will sign an executive order stating, essentially, that the law will follow the law.”

So what’s the deal here? Is Stupak just stupid? Is he a charlatan exploiting the gullibility of a few easily-blinded, pro-life Democrats in the House to snatch some quality time in the political spotlight?

Or could he possibly be Nancy Pelosi‘s secret weapon, signing on to play the heavy in a well-conceived script designed to grease the healthcare bill through the House without the kind of ransom shenanigans we saw repeatedly in the Senate at the eleventh hour?

Back in December, first Joe Lieberman had his way with the Senate healthcare bill. Then, we had the Ben Nelson travesty. And, at that point, the question on everyone’s mind was: who’s going to show up with a ransom note next? And, being the principled gentlemen they are, it was not entirely out of the question that Nelson or Lieberman would show up in the ransom line again. (This paragraph was corrected Monday night.)

Of course, this kind of last-minute holding-to-ransom didn’t exactly come as a surprise to anyone. And just as anyone with an IQ exceeding their age could see it coming in the Senate, perhaps Pelosi and her advisers could see it easily happening in the House as well? It was, after all, abundantly clear that the vote on the healthcare bill was going to be pretty damn close.

So what ends up happening? In the crucial days just before the two critical House healthcare votes, Stupak enters stage right. Armed with a surefire hot-button issue, he steps confidently into the spotlight. And proceeds to suck up all the last-minute-hold-up oxygen. No room for anyone else to grandstand and push their own little ransom notes. And, each time, Stupak doesn’t relinquish the spotlight till the very last minute. Each time, Stupak’s last-minute cave results in passage of the bill. By a wafer-thin margin.

And Stupak’s well-scripted shenanigans don’t just crowd out other would-be for-profit obstructionists. They also allow the House Democratic leadership to twist the arm of every genuinely wavering Democrat. With Stupak-and-Stupakers sitting on the fence, and the vote count teetering so precariously right on the very edge of the magic number for passage, everyone could be easily brought to appreciate that now was the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party.

Without Stupak’s strategery, I’m really not sure if I would ever have got to enjoy my three-establishment celebration dinner. The only real question, I think, is: did Stupak achieve this inadvertently, or was it all an extremely well-conceived and scripted piece of political theater?

Comments

  1. sarabeth says:

    Just to be clear, I guess I am arguing: “No Stupak, no bill.”

    (Or at least asking it as a question.)

  2. James Chen says:

    Definitely a matter of malice (on part of Pelosi et al) versus stupidity – and as always, /stupidity/ wins.

    ANY hostage-taking grandstanding could’ve only happened during the closing periods of the bill, and would’ve taken the wind out of any other attempts. Stupak’s period was merely reflective of the timing of opportunities in our political structure – he saw an opportunity, he nabbed it… and he squandered it because, yes, Stupak /is that stupid/.

    If it wasn’t Stupak, it would’ve been some other Democrat with a harebrained personal crusade to pursue. Such is life in our esteemed Congress.

  3. sarabeth says:

    I don’t think you got the point(s) of my post at all.

    I sure as hell don’t get the point(s) of your comment.
    – What does “Definitely a matter of malice (on part of Pelosi et al)” even mean?
    – How, pray, did Stupak win?
    – The Senate ransom games happened well before the closing periods of the bill. In the Senate, there was enough time for both Nelson and Lieberman to screw round with the bill. And there was enough time for more than one person to step up to the plate after them, but no one did.
    – Stupak started his scripted-or-not nonsense well before the closing periods both times.

    For the record, my points were
    a) If all this was planned, it was pretty damn clever
    b) For all we know, it could have been planned
    c) I really don’t see any other way that it makes sense for Stupak to pull the same lame stunt twice
    d) Even if it wasn’t planned, Stupak’s stupidity way well have been a Godsend. Without it, the bill may well not have passed.

    So either we need to say “Thank gods for the guys who put this script together!” or we should be going “Thank gods for stupid Stupaks!”

  4. That is some grade A tinfoil. Hell not tinfoil, gold foil. It is true that the Stupak show helped Pelosi. I’m sure this was not Stupak’s aim.

    Also in the Senate you called the winner of the slow bicycle rare incorrectly. Nelson and Lieberman had a totally ruthless competition for the coveted position of 60th vote. In the end Nelson, not Lieberman, won by crossing the Yes line 60th.

    Recall. Lieberman’s plan was to refuse to participate in the team of 10 negotations so the team of 10 compromise would be the opening bid of the Democrats and Sanders negotiate with Lieberman. He demanded and obtained removal of Medicare buy in.

    But Nelson outflanked him to the right (or more exactly to the more shamelessly egomaniacal and publicity hungry) suddenly proposing that hte medicaid expansion be decided by state governments (suddenly removing support for one of the key features of the bill and the one most dear to liberals and progressives).

    While Nelson was extorting the cornhusker kickback, Lieberman was officially supporting the bill, one of 59 Senators trying to reason with Nelson.

    So Lieberman only managed a half Nelson, the last ransom note was the full Nelson.

  5. sarabeth says:

    My chronology of the Nelson and Lieberman nonsense was sloppy (especially since the Lieberman link is dated 3 days prior to the Nelson link). Now fixed.

    Meanwhile, feel free to explain how Stupak’s shenanigans make any damn sense. What was Stupak’s aim, according to you?

  6. Rieux says:

    I’m more sympathetic to your theory than other commenters here, but I find it more plausible that Stupak is just an attention whore (which is not quite the same thing as a “charlatan”).

    For a politician, the kind of center-stage spotlight that Stupak bought himself with his (as you note) substantively meaningless demands is golden.

    Did you see the floor debate on the motion to recommit? There was Stupak, rising to stuff the Repubs’ whining about abortion and the bill right up their asses. Standing O from his side of the House, plus goodness-knows-how-many of us Ds watching at home. (Not to mention “baby killer” from Randy Neugebauer.)

    My theory is that that, not some stupid executive order, was what Stupak was angling for. Nobody in the political classes has to ask who Bart Stupak is today–and that’s not a minor reward, from an obscure Congressman’s perspective, in exchange for a few weeks of silly whining.

    An ordinary politician angling for attention seems more plausible to me than the kind of Machiavellian strategizing you’re suggesting Pelosi engaged in.

  7. sarabeth says:

    What exactly did his moment of golden publicity buy him?

    Yes, everybody knows his name. But everybody who’s pro-choice now hates him (for almost killing the bill), and everybody who’s anti-abortion now hates him (for capitulating, and becoming a baby killer). And that’s his great payoff?

    I’m not saying that “my theory” is actually likely to be true. I am saying that nothing else seems to make any better sense, though, does it?

  8. Texas Aggie says:

    The other day it occurred to me that having a credible opponent in the primaries may have had some effect on Stupak. He started his foolishness from some sort of personal problem he has had for a very long time, but when he was threatened with a challenge in the primaries, he needed a way to back down that wasn’t going to make him look too bad. He worked a deal where he accepted essentially a promise to not change anything, but that could be shown as a badge of honor.

    This is just an hypothesis, but it seems to fit the facts, at least the ones I’m aware of.

  9. Texas Aggie says:

    Maybe I should explain what I mean by “personal problem.” His record is of a reasonably sane, decent individual until abortion enters. Then he just goes shatbit crazy, and loses all sense of proportion and reality. This isn’t the first time that he has looked at something through abortion colored glasses.

  10. Rieux says:

    What exactly did his moment of golden publicity buy him?

    Are you serious?

    To some extent, of course, for a preening politician publicity is an end in itself, not just an instrumental good.

    But of course, that kind of prime camera time translates into $donations, not to mention status as Congress’s Official Pro-Life Democrat. Did you not watch the press conference BS delivered on Sunday with his posse? The amount of ego-stroking he got from said posse was incredible.

    But everybody who’s pro-choice now hates him (for almost killing the bill)

    I’ll believe that when I see it. Pro-choicers (such as moi) might hate him for being a preening anti-abortion dick, but who exactly believes Stupak “almost kill[ed] the bill”? You clearly don’t; especially in hindsight (i.e., in light of the empty crap he settled for), it’s pretty clear that there was never any real danger.

    As for anti-choicers, I suppose he’s blown it with anyone who hates the bill. But that was inevitable. Anyone who is both anti-abortion and in favor of the HCR bill now has an Official Favorite Congressman, with the endorsement of several effusive pro-life Dems (the posse) to show the way. That’s not nothing.

  11. sarabeth says:

    Texas Aggie: but he pulled the exact same stunt back in November too, didn’t he? Your hypothesis doesn’t fit him doing it twice.

    Rieux: Pelosi and the White House took him seriously enough, even though he had tamely folded in November. So even after the benefit of round one, it wasn’t clear to them that there was no real danger. Do you seriously doubt that if someone took a poll, a majority of those who followed the “debate” would not agree that Stupak almost killed the bill? Also,”Anyone who is both anti-abortion and in favor of the HCR bill” is surely not a very large group.

  12. sarabeth says:

    So here’s how this whole episode seems to have turned out for Stupak:

    With just a few days to go before the end of this recess, House Democrats are cautiously optimistic that they could get through it without a single retirement announcement. That said, there is still a concern that some important incumbents in districts that they are uniquely suited could call it quits. At the top of the concern list this week: Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak. The Democrat best known this year as the Democrat who delivered the winning margin of votes for the president’s health-care reform bill is said to be simply exhausted. The criticism he received — first from the left, and then from the right — has worn him and his family out. And if he had to make the decision now, he’d probably NOT run. As of this writing, a bunch of senior Democrats (many of the same ones who twisted his arm on the health care vote) are trying to talk him into running. The filing deadline in Michigan is still a month away, but veterans of that state’s politics are skeptical anyone other than Stupak can hold that district in this political climate.

    Rieux disagreed with me pretty strongly when I wrote this in comment 7:

    But everybody who’s pro-choice now hates him (for almost killing the bill), and everybody who’s anti-abortion now hates him (for capitulating, and becoming a baby killer). And that’s his great payoff?

    But Stupak seems to be seeing it the same way now.

    (Excuse me while I take my obligatory Swami Sarabeth bow.)