Now on ScienceBlogs: Basics: Guest Post 1: Male Reproductive Anatomy
Thoughts From the Interface of Science, Religion, Law and Culture
Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)
Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb
« My Rachel Maddow Adventure | Main | Ackerman Rips Romney's Foreign Policy Cred »
Posted on: March 5, 2010 9:30 AM, by Ed Brayton
Here's the video of my appearance on Rachel Maddow last night.
A friend of mine asked me last night how I did that without looking at all nervous. The answer is probably obvious to anyone who knows me. This is one of those times when having a huge ego can be a big help. Narcissism is a gift? Probably only at times like those. The rest of the time it just makes me an insufferable asshole.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Find more posts in: 
Politics
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
PZ Myers 03.07.2010
PZ Myers 03.06.2010
Ed Brayton 03.07.2010
Erik Klemetti 03.04.2010
Tim Lambert 03.06.2010
Comments
I dunno, Ed. I detected a noticable *gulp* when you first came on camera. I think that huge ego thing is just a put-on.
Posted by: Shygetz | March 5, 2010 9:53 AM
$600? I'm paying $975 for a one bedroom in South-West without a dishwasher. I wonder what the C-Street house is scrimping on. No stove? Nearest laundry a mile a way? Even downgrading just to a studio is only going to get them to $800 at best in the more run-down areas.
Well done, Ed.
Posted by: nedlum | March 5, 2010 10:04 AM
The only time I was on TV (discussing a far-right vicar for a BBC politics show) I lost my thread as I held forth - luckily it wasn't live.
It's good to see Jeff's book getting ever-increasing coverage. For those who haven't read it, I have a (I hope) comprehensive review posted to Goodreads here.
Posted by: Bartholomew | March 5, 2010 10:14 AM
Having lied isn't Stupak somewhat compromised? Or is he immune to scandal? Maybe the term "No comment" carries more weight than accountability.
It would be interesting to know who he wrote his rent checks to. And how much of a break he accumulate over the years.
Posted by: Reverend Rodney | March 5, 2010 10:20 AM
I am in fierce disagreement with Ms. Maddow that Rep. Stupak is advocating for more restrictive abortion rights and insurance coverage in the healthcare bill merely to exploit his brand and leverage a run for governor or to help Republicans kill healthcare. I think it's also totally dishonest on her part to repeatedly assert that his amendment would "effectively ban abortion", though I find his initiative is certainly chilling.
Mr. Stupak's toying with a run for governor was dwindling when he began championing this anti-abortion initiative and he's since announced he's not running. In addition if this is merely about his vanity he wouldn't have a dozen House Democrats caucusing with him who were successful in modifying the House Bill just prior to passage and then voting for the House Bill. Ed's point this is about principle is the reasonable assumption; I fear however his analysis got drowned out in all the strident rhetoric that preceded his accurate analysis.
I am also in disagreement with how she went about trying to convince us she understands his motivations, i.e., his opacity on his relationships with The Family and that Sen. Harkin disagrees with Rep. Stupak's analysis regarding abortion in the Senate Health Care bill. In fact this was the worst analysis I've ever seen her make, startlingly so, it was more character assassination than dispassionate analysis built around facts.
Ms. Maddow did do a good job of revealing the fact his rent is most likely way below market value given it's a paltry $600/mo. in a very expensive market. That's a story-line that should be investigated further.
I've also seen no adequate news story differentiating the differences between: the Senate Bill, Stupak's initiative (Stupak-Pitts Amendment), the Hyde Amendment and each side's differences with the Hyde Amendment, and the rhetoric from both sides, especially since Speaker Pelosi and Rep. Stupak are each essentially calling the other a liar and no media outlet is providing an adequate set of facts to determine reality. It's important to parse this out because most Democrats are claiming that their language is in compliance with the Hyde Amendment while Mr. Stupak is cagey about how his standard stacks up to the Hyde Amendment.
Because these differences are not known by either the media or the public, there is no way any of us can truly gauge Rep. Stupak's motivation to lead this effort that risks passage of the Senate Bill in the House given the fact he loses all leverage if his initiative is more restrictive than the Hyde Amendment. I do know that the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is chilling, but again, it's dishonest to claim it would end abortion in this country as Ms. Maddow provocatively, falsely, and repeatedly claimed.
Ed did a good job of tempering Ms. Maddow's initial analysis though I've got a real bad taste in mouth regarding Ms. Maddow's behavior in this segment. I've struggled about whether I should bring this up since I'm so happy for Ed getting on and don't want to rain on his parade. I also greatly respect Ms. Maddow and would like to see far more news analysts with her intelligence, talent, and willingness to dive below the talking points.
I've went so far in my support for her that I wrote a letter to the President of NBC's news division advocating she replace Tim Russert on Meet the Press rather than David Gregory in spite of her lack of experience and background in biased analysis and advocacy. I've never encountered her engaging Glenn Beck / Sean Hannity standard character assassinations before, I hope last evening was the last time.
Here are the two best links I've found in helping to understand the differences between Stupak's position and the Senate Bill, neither provide a clear understanding of this conflict however both are helpful to some degree. Stupak's interview transcript with Chris Matthews . I link to the transcript since the verbal exchange was too quick to catch the nuance and possible absurdity of Rep. Stupak's position. ABC News story that reports on this story as a complement to Rep. Stupak's interview on Good Morning America with George Stephanopolous.
I also find Ms. Maddow's conflating Mr. Stupak's use of the word "lifestyle" when describing Mark Foley dishonest and lacking in integrity. The more reasonable assumption is that Mr. Stupak was referring to Mr. Foley's well-known demonstrated behavior to young pages who just happened to be male, not that such behavior was due to Foley's sexual orientation as Ms. Maddow strongly insinuates. This is Glen Beck level character assassination unless Ms. Maddow has more evidence than she presented here.
Disclaimer: I live in Rep. Stupak's district and find him to be a very capable Congressman. I also have been critical of him in the past in this forum on some issues and in no way support his abortion initiative that threatens the passage of healthcare reform.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 5, 2010 10:22 AM
Aw, good job Ed! Makes me miss you. Hope you come down this way sometime so we can get together again.
Posted by: Andrea | March 5, 2010 10:26 AM
Re nedlum
It is my understanding that Representative Stupak was renting a room in the C Street house, not an apartment. If so, I would assume that there are no cooking, laundry, separate bedroom, or other facilities that would typically be available in an apartment. If so, his rent would not be out of line.
Re Michael Heath
Although I agree with Mr. Michael Heath that Ms. Maddows' introduction to Mr. Braytons' interview was considerably overblown, the simple fact is that Representative Stupak is a liar in claiming that he has no knowledge of the Family or what the purpose of the C Street so-called "church" is. Representative Stupak chose to get into the pen with the pigs and as so often happens, he is emerging with a coating of mud.
Posted by: SLC | March 5, 2010 10:46 AM
Good show! I have a question that went unasked, unfortunately - and I ask this without ulterior motive - how do we know that these different non-profits are associated with or run by the Family?
Do the same people run them? Are there transfers of property or funds when one foundation is shut down to the next foundation?
Sadly, I don't think I'll have time to the book?
Posted by: SteveWW | March 5, 2010 10:47 AM
Michael Heath - I don't have the time this morning to dig into your question about the differences between the Stupak-Pitts amendment (don't neglect Pitts - he seems to be the brains of the team) and the Senate's language, but I'd like to suggest that the most detailed analysis probably can be found at RHRealityCheck.
The Guttmacher Institute is an even better source of information on abortion/contraception issues, but a search there for "Stupak" comes up blank.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | March 5, 2010 10:49 AM
@Michael Heath: My understanding after reading the Stupak/Pitts amendment on the NYT website is that his amendment would prevent anyone receiving insurance subsidies from buying an insurance policy on the exchange that includes abortion coverage; this reduction would effectively prevent insurance companies from offering abortion-covering policies on the exchange. The Senate bill would separate the Federal money in the insurance companies' coffers, only allowing private money to be used to purchase abortion services but allowing partially subsidized people to purchase abortion-covering insurance on the exchange. The net effect would be to make abortion either a cash-only affair, or make abortion coverage only purchasable through supplementary insurance, which would not be included on the exchange.
Posted by: Shygetz | March 5, 2010 11:00 AM
Shygetz @ 10 - I understand the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which is why I characterized it as 'chilling'. The key political question is whether the Senate version violates the Hyde Amendment, if the Senate Bill is compliant with Hyde than Stupak's political capital on this issue disappears. As best as I know, no one in the media has analyzed the Senate Bill's fealty to the Hyde Amendment, Stupak's certainly is compliant, in fact it appears to go far beyond the Hyde Amendment in its restrictions.
If the Senate version of this bill is in compliance with the Hyde Amendment than Mr. Stupak and his other twelve Congressman are revealed as cynically exploiting an opportunity at the cost healthcare reform - an initiative they claim they support. Their motivation could still be based on principle, but the argument their wisdom is greatly flawed becomes insurmountable within the entire Democratic caucus if the Senate version is compliant to Hyde.
When Mr. Matthews brings up the question of whether the Senate Bill is compliant to Hyde Mr. Stupak owns Matthews by avoiding answering in a manner which I think went right over Mr. Matthew's head. Almost immediately Mr. Matthews reverts to his comfort zone, talking politics rather than policy, and therefore loses the opportunity for us to understand the strength of Mr. Stupak's political argument against the Senate Bill.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 5, 2010 11:19 AM
Michael-
I agree with you on much of what you said. I do not believe that Stupak is trying to get attention with this; he sincerely believes in what he's doing. He's the chair of the House Pro-Life Caucus, it's not as if he's just adopted this position out of political expediency. Abortion has always been his primary issue to get passionate about.
And the brief look at a run for governor had no connection to the abortion issue; that only happened because John Cherry unexpectedly dropped out and the Michigan Democratic Party was groping around for someone to run that had some name recognition in the state. Stupak met with party officials and a few consultants and decided he had little chance of winning and decided not to give it a shot.
I also don't think the mention of "lifestyle" meant he was referring to homosexuality itself. Stupak is not a guy who is particularly anti-gay, despite his religious views. He voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, in favor of the ENDA and in favor of the hate crimes bill. I think he was referring to the fact that Foley had a thing for particularly young men and had had run ins with pages before. That was well known in DC long before the scandal broke.
You're right, that was out of character for Rachel and I hope it continues to be. That's why I felt it was necessary to mention at the end that Stupak is not exactly Jesse Helms. He's generally a very moderate, reasonable guy except on the subject of abortion.
Funny thing is that I think his political team thinks I really have it in for Stupak and I don't. I actually think he's a pretty good congressman. He's pretty good on environmental issues (not perfect, but good), especially protecting the Great Lakes. I think he's a basically decent guy and I think he's quite sincere in his beliefs. But I also think he's hiding all this stuff about the Family because he knows it really doesn't play well at all.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 5, 2010 11:20 AM
Finally snuck in the 15 minutes to watch the vid.
The other major hole in both Maddow and Brayton's summaries of this situation is that neither mentioned the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. Despite the name, the "Conference" is a permanent and well-staffed office which seems to function as the Vatican's main lobby/political nerve center in the US; they've been pushing very hard to squeeze abortion rights in any way possible during the health care "reform" circus. Some reports have it that Stupak played a role in getting their spokesbishops a meeting with Speaker Pelosi; certainly he was acting (rather overtly) as their agent with his and Pitt's amendment, and since.
Note also his more recent list of disagreements with the health care proposals: he's clearly been "negotiating" in bad faith all along.
PS: digging a little for the above update, I found here a story that "Guttmacher Institute says the Nelson amendment in the senate is virtually identical to the Stupak amendment in the House...."
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | March 5, 2010 11:49 AM
Ed wrote
"I also don't think the mention of "lifestyle" meant he was referring to homosexuality itself. .... I think he was referring to the fact that Foley had a thing for particularly young men and had had run ins with pages before. That was well known in DC long before the scandal broke."
Either way there is a problem here. If he knew Foley was abusing his position to take advantage of pages and did nothing to stop it, that's a big problem too. But I think it is still possible that he was conflating Foley's lifestyle with a homosexual lifestyle.
Posted by: Joe | March 5, 2010 11:52 AM
Ed,
I agree with every word and point you make @ 12. Hopefully with your exposure coupled to your corrections of Ms. Maddow's characterization Rep. Stupak will begin to provide more access. I think his and his staff's reluctance to talk to you is solely related to the the topics you raise which are topics he'd prefer never acknowledging.
Stupak's hosting a Townhall Meeting on 3/8 in Tawas City which I note here in case the Messenger has the desire and a local resource to cover that farflung event (it's quite a drive even from Traverse City). It could be a rowdy meeting given that area's 18.7% unemployment rate (as of Dec-09 for NE MI) and the disproportionate number of retirees in that area who probably think Mr. Stupak's Democrats are out to steal their Medicare.
I'm tempted to go and ask one simple question, "Is the Senate Healthcare reform bill the House is considering compliant with the Hyde Amendment?"
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 5, 2010 11:52 AM
Doesn't matter whether Stupak believes in his ammendment or not, he is still trying to make a set of religious beliefs federal law & that is unconstitutional.
Posted by: Rob Jase | March 5, 2010 11:58 AM
Pierce @ 13:
"Clearly"? I wasn't able to even get to a primary source for your blogger's claim. They link to a WSJ article that refers to an interview by Stupak and quotes him, but fails to either link to that interview or name the media source. Googling Stupak and the quote failed as well.
Rep. Stupak has been consistently on the record as supporting health care reform and voted for the House Bill that passed the House after he was able to incorporate his abortion language. In the Matthews interview transcript I linked to @ 5 he talks about a concern even liberal House Democrats have, getting their differences with the Senate Bill considered in the Senate assuming those differences can be run through reconciliation. Rep. Stupak argues for doing a tie-bar, which would allow House passage of the Senate Bill only if the Senate subsequently passed the reconcilation deal the House and White House work out with a majority of Senate Democrats; all within the context of what can and what can not be passed through reconciliation. Another contextual matter is the lengths Senate Democrats, particularly Majority Leader Reid, Vice President Biden (as President of the Senate), and 50 or more Senate Democrats are willing to do in regards to moving items that are arguably not budgetary through the reconciliation process if the parliamentarian officer objects to some of these items.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 5, 2010 12:08 PM
Here's ThinkProgress.org's interesting though ultimately mediocre fisking of Rep. Stupak's interview with Chris Matthews the other night. This analysis still fails to answer important questions, i.e., why is the federal government mandating private insurers collect $1/mo./policy for abortion services? What services or situations specifically do those cover?
The money is trivial, but why go there at all? There may be very good reasons to go there but why and is it compliant with Hyde? In addition, what is the scope of this mandate, all privately-underwritten policies in the new state exchanges or instead a mere subset of private policies like those to be underwritten for the group Stupak refers to in the Matthews interview, i.e., the Office of Personnel Management?
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 5, 2010 12:22 PM
Rob Jase @ 16:
Religious groups can and do advocate for the defense of human rights motivated and even justified by their religious beliefs. See the American abolition of slavery. That's the aspect you ignore in your argument.
Certainly their motivation can be and frequently is religious. However Mr. Stupak can and does make secular arguments justifying his position that the rights of the unborn are superior to the rights of the pregnant female in certain cases. I don't agree with his position and I agree with you that a purely religious argument that deprives others of their liberty rights is unconstitutional, but Mr. Stupak's position doesn't fail this test as you charge.
That's because your argument defectively looks at only one perspective, that his religious beliefs are sufficient to deny others who disagree their rights. That is a good argument when it comes to gay rights; but defective when considering abortion rights given there is more entities involved than the pregnant female, i.e., that of the unborn, an argument which is consistent with both Roe and Casey.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 5, 2010 12:33 PM
@Michael Heath,
I had a link up to a nice comparison from Nov of last year, but it looks like it got swallowed. Basically, the Senate version does follow the Hyde amendment guidelines by requiring insurers to keep Federal and private money separate, and use only private money to provide abortion services. Therefore, no Federal money is used for abortion, period.
Posted by: Shygetz | March 5, 2010 1:01 PM
Hi Ed I had no idea that you were THAT good looking :]
Posted by: marie | March 5, 2010 1:06 PM
SteveWW @ 8
That information comes from the I.R.S. 990 forms of the organizations. For example, one of the organizations that I found in working on this with Jeff Sharlet was called the Ambassadors of Reconciliation, which was only in operation for two years (2004-2006). It had Doug Coe on its board, and when it disbanded it turned its assets over to the Fellowship Foundation (a.k.a. The Family), so it shows up on the Fellowship Foundation's 990.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | March 5, 2010 1:16 PM
Glad you were able to get in the thing about Stupak's bill to give the Coast Guard land to the church school. That was one of those little success stories that almost nobody had even heard about because Stupak backed down so quickly.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | March 5, 2010 1:23 PM
I imagine the stand-up experience probably helped as well, Ed. You definitely have a healthy ego, but I think narcissism is pushing it a bit!
Some of us just seem to excel at these things, and I envy those people dearly. I literally fainted during a presentation at a high school forensics tournament one year. But you did a great job on Maddow, though there seemed to be a bit of delay which of course wasn't your fault.
Posted by: Gretchen | March 5, 2010 1:57 PM
But nothing will ever beat Ed's appearance on C-SPAN with the South Park Chuck Norris ;-)
Posted by: Chris Rodda | March 5, 2010 2:20 PM
Excellent stuff, Ed. How did you end up on Rachel's show? I mean how did that hookup take place?
Posted by: Robert Faber | March 5, 2010 2:35 PM
I should add that Chris Rodda is the one who actually found that legislation giving property to the church school. She called me and tipped me off to it and I ran with it. So thanks Chris!
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 5, 2010 3:23 PM
Shygetz @ 20:
Jeez, silly me for even bringing this up if it were that simple. However, your last statement is not true, in spite of your adding an exclamation. There are exceptions and if the Senate Bill passes there will continue to be. Some key questions are whether Stupak's arguments are outside the scope of the Hyde Amendment or not and whether the Senate bill skirts around the spirit of the Hyde Amendment in novel and expanded ways in spite of its clear language it won't. I thought us liberals and moderates weren't so gullible in believing everything our side's leaders tell us. ;)
Our communal reliance on mere talking points on this issue is allowing Rep. Stupak the opportunity to muddy the waters. For example, in spite of the Hyde Amendment federal employees currently enjoy health insurance from their employer, the federal government. Most of these available policies covers abortion services; that's one example of where federal funds are currently being spent while remaining in compliance with the Hyde Amendment with no language changing that in the Senate bill. In addition, the Hyde Amendment restricts only appropriations, that provides end-run opportunities for federal funds to be spent on abortion services while remaining compliant with the Hyde Amendment, this is a point that Mr. Stupak has brought up and that hasn't been rebutted.
Rep. Stupak created an issue that can't be analyzed with mere soundbites. It also doesn't help when Speaker Pelosi claimed at the Healthcare Summit the Senate bill won't have the federal government spending its funds on insurance with abortion coverage when it appears they already are spending funds and the Senate bill would effectively broaden current policies becoming available to a wider set of consumers to access this coverage, or not, as well.
Therefore, we need a precise analysis which directly and holistically responds to Rep. Stupak's points. So far I've seen zero that meet that standard. That's probably why Mr. Stupak continues to enjoy some momentum for his initiative. It should be noted however his whip count on this matter seems to have gone from 40 to 20 to around 12 now since this all started last Autumn. That brings up another matter, how badly does the President need those 12? Bad enough he's been meeting with liberal House members who have taken dissenting positions given the weakness of the bill relative to their wish list.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 5, 2010 3:40 PM
Cheers, Chris!
Thanks for the info, I suspected it was something similar to turning assets over when the old foundation was disbanded, but was curious about exactly what evidence was out there. Many thanks for your investigative work!
Posted by: SteveWW | March 5, 2010 5:10 PM
@Michael: Yes, there are the standard Hyde exceptions, which are within the Hyde amendment AND the Stupak amendment (life of the mother, rape, incest). But you act as though the Senate and Stupak amendments are mysterious black holes that defy analysis by we mere mortals, and that I must be spouting talking points if I claim that, yes, you can tell what's going on.
Assuming you're not talking about Hyde-allowed abortions (life of mother, rape, incest), then I beg to differ. Abortions are not allowed to be covered under the FEHBP since 1995. Here's a recent story that mentions the ban, along with an example of the drawbacks. Do you have evidence that the ban has been lifted?
Both the Senate bill and the House bill as amended with the Capps amendment extend the Hyde amendment prohibitions to cover all health plans subsidized by Federal money. So, Stupak is pulling a fast one on you--yes, the Hyde amendment does not apply directly to the healthcare bills, but the Hyde abortion exclusions have been directly incorporated into the bills through reference to HHS abortion restrictions (which the Hyde amendment does directly control).
BTW, here is the comparison I tried to post earlier:
Posted by: Shygetz | March 5, 2010 5:12 PM
2 things.
I care about Stupak, both because of the specifics of the health care debate and the measure's hope for passage, and because he seems to be an interesting character among the gargoyles of the current polity. But aside from reading Sharlett I haven't the background or time to really refine my opinion. Can someone simplify this issue? Is Stupak more of a Family man or more of a Democrat? I was inclined to lump him in with Coe and the Tauzin and the rest of The Family/far right religious wingnuts, but Ed and MH both seem to give him some respect, or perhaps think of him as someone to be dealt with instead of just vilified and mocked as a hypocrite or a kook. Help.
2: Ed hooked up with Maddow? That's confusing in several ways but still hawt.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | March 5, 2010 5:22 PM
Shygetz @ # 30: Is Stupak more of a Family man or more of a Democrat?
He apparently straddles the line. The Family is primarily an evangelical-Protestant project, while Stupak is a loyal & obedient Catholic. The Family line is strongly anti-union - arguably that's the angle which got it into bu$ine$$ circles in the beginning - but Stupak is reputed to be a solid pro-union politician, mirroring his district. So, even more than most DC relationships, his Family ties, though prolonged, seem an alliance of convenience.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | March 5, 2010 6:43 PM
Michael Heath @ # 17: I wasn't able to even get to a primary source for your blogger's claim. They link to a WSJ article that refers to an interview by Stupak and quotes him, but fails to either link to that interview or name the media source.
At least some of the articles found by Googling "Stupak [quote]" imply that the interview was done by the WSJ blog him/her/them-self (which is also how I read it).
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | March 5, 2010 7:12 PM
Pierce - the problem is that the WSJ blogger doesn't claim to interview Stupak and those words are the complete opposite of he's been saying all along, including in his interview on Hardball this week, and how he voted on the House Bill, which was yes.
I also read the WSJ every day and have done so since 1985, I trust nothing most of the opinion writers / bloggers report as facts. Their straight news is like an alternative universe where I am comfortable the story is both accurate and competently framed with the exception of science-related stories.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 5, 2010 7:32 PM
Shygetz @ 30,
Your link to a comparison of Hyde, Stupak-Pitts, the original House and the Senate bill was and is my understanding as well. However Rep. Stupak is claiming that the ramifications are not reported accurately in these comparisons and that the net result will be more federal monies going to abortion, both through premiums (his $1/mo./policy rhetoric) and coverage; where he's vague though I think he's implying due merely to increased access to federal funding through funds directed to state Medicaid accounts and access to the state exchanges with these sorts of coverages.
I did learn something from your WaPo link. I thought anencephaly was federally covered based on health risks to the mother. It's a nightmare it's not. The OPM's denial of coverage reminds me of all the horrible stories Andrew Sullivan reported after the George Tiller murder where women in trouble had to leave their states to seek treatment. Other than that story, my perception matched this report. And again, this illuminates my point that the media is not digging in hard enough.
It's been clear all along that the Stupak-Pitts amendment is "chilling" (the word I've used) in its restrictions while talking in a language where I assume he wants the audience to believe he's talking about abortion on-demand rather than for reasons way over 70% of the public support should be a viable option for pregnant females. On the other hand, I'm not convinced he's lying about the Senate bill's ability to provide funding for on-demand services in certain ways either. This is why I'm hoping someone will precisely rebut Mr. Stupak's precise objections to the Senate Bill relative to the status quo, which is the Hyde Amendment.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 5, 2010 7:48 PM
ABC News claimed tonight that Rep. Stupak is full of shit: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/democrats-disagree-abortion-language-10014322
It'll be interesting to see how Mr. Stupak responds. I hope ABC News' Jonathan Karl didn't come to his conclusion himself but instead validated the conclusion he reported with policy experts.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 5, 2010 8:37 PM
I listened to the report and unless I'm hugely mistaken, that $600 wasn't just for rent - it included meals and maid service.
There's no way in hell that $600 a month covers all of that.
Posted by: Ancient Brit | March 5, 2010 9:55 PM
I'll also disagree with Maddow's assertion that Stupak is in this fight for fame. He had some exposure a few years ago when the NRA turned on him for voting to close the gun show loophole. (He had long been an "NRA Democrat" but that vote ended that alliance.)
The NRA went after him full bore--launching a multi-million dollar campaign to unseat him. They poured a ton of cash into the Repub candidate (If you said his name, it would suddenly come back to me---I do remember he was nothing but an NRA pawn) but ultimately lost, obviously.
Posted by: KShep | March 5, 2010 10:47 PM
Michael Heath @ # 34 - You're probably right in distrusting the WSJ bloggers, if they're picked by the same people who chose the editorialists.
The Journal has long had a rep for nutty opinion-writers and good reporters, though after the Murdoch takeover we can expect the latter aspect to erode.
Even so, I have to bring some salt to the implication that they would make up words to put in the mouth of a sitting congressmember who's (on this issue) on their side. Have you observed them (mis)behaving similarly before?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | March 5, 2010 11:07 PM
Pierce @ 39:
I didn't claim the WSJ created words out of thin air. My reading of the text has me believing that this blogger didn't interview Mr. Stupak and without a reference to the primary source, I can't get a full framing of what Mr. Stupak stated. Given we both hang-out here, where Ed periodically pulls up quote-mines by creationists or American history revisionists, we should realize how easy it is to quote-mine someone to the point the words quoted misconstrues the speaker's points. I admit I'm skeptical of the brief quotes from Stupak in that WSJ blog post since Mr. Stupak has frequently claimed he wants to vote for passage of a healthcare bill and has already done so. He is becoming more of a hard-liner on qualifying this professed desire with rhetoric on how it must meet certain abortion restrictions where the goal-posts are fuzzy and possibly shifting.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 6, 2010 6:14 AM
Michael Heath @ # 40 - I searched three pages of Google results for "Stupak [quote from WSJ blog]" and couldn't find anybody attributing it to anywhere else than the blog.
Eventually the trail went cold, with nothing but items citing scattered words, mostly from last year. Those hits from recent days cited nothing other than Janet Adamy's blog post.
My take on Stupak in general is that, to paraphrase Shygetz, he's more of a Catholic than he is a Democrat. And since the Catholic hierarchy is more aligned with the Republicans, beating Obama's insurance reform effort to death with the abortion stick (plus the usual techniques of duplicity) works for them, and thus for Bart S as well.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | March 6, 2010 10:12 AM
Who are these 12 representatives? Or has he simply made this number up? From my view, Stupak speaks in generalities about his coalition of "pro-life democrats", but I don't know if anyone has officially gone on record besides him. The ultimate question is, how many Representatives does he actually have that will oppose the HCR bill based on the abortion language?
Until I hear other representatives lending their name and credibility, I put Stupak's number of "12" as a fabrication. I'd guess there's maybe 3 that would actually dig in their heels and vote against the bill, and 9 that can be whipped.
Hell. For that matter, they all can be whipped, it's just a matter of the payoff.
Posted by: Drake33 | March 6, 2010 12:54 PM
Drake33 states @ 42:
Jay Cost @ RealClearPolitics calculates the remaining members (see below numbered list). Chris Bowers slightly modifies the list (in the text below Cost's #'d list):
Drake33 states @ 42:
If you'd been following the Healthcare debate you'd know it was not made-up given that Stupak's caucus stopped healthcare reform from passing in the House until the Stupak-Capps amendment was incorporated into the bill, supplanting the Capps Amendment. One Representative could not have done that, both Rep. Stupak and Speaker Pelosi (through her whip) had counted the votes.
Drake33 states @ 42:
Then you should acknowledge 'your view' is perfectly uninformed. I suggest either not making judgments prior to doing research or getting superior media sources since it's common knowledge that an anti-abortion rights caucus exists within the House Democratic party. Here's an example of nineteen of them sending a letter to Speaker Pelosi last summer threatening to vote against the House healthcare bill, ". . . unless it explicitly excludes abortion funding from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan."
Drake33 states @ 42:
I'm really glad you are not the Speaker of the House given your juvenile reaction to the Stupak obstacle would surely cause the Democrats to once again fail to pass healthcare.
Drake33 states @ 42:
Please provide a citation validating your claim regarding the current House Democratic Representatives on the record opposing the Senate bill's language on abortion can all be paid-off. I suggest using the nineteen who've signed the letter. I won't hold my breath.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 6, 2010 2:12 PM
well done!! brilliant.
Posted by: mari333 | March 6, 2010 3:57 PM
My intended link @ 43 to the RealClearPolitics / Open Left citation is inexplicitly missing; here's the link to that citation: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2010/03/counting_the_heads_of_house_de.html
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 6, 2010 4:07 PM
I HOPE THAT CONGRESMAN STUPAK WILL REPENT OF POPERY AND BECOME RAPTURE READY, SO THAT HE WON'T SPEND THE REST OF HIS LIFE... AND ALL OF ETERNITY... WITH PIAPS!!!!
Posted by: AMERICAPHILE MINISTRIES | March 6, 2010 8:16 PM
The following is the 2007 Form 990 for the The Fellowship Foundation.
http://207.153.189.83/EINS/530204604/530204604_2007_0495BCF0.PDF
Note
Operation of facilities for ministries: The foundation owns and operates various houses which serve to facilitate ministry activities among the many ministries which are part of the International Foundation. The properties are also used to host persons from around the world for discipleship and training purposes. The foundation works with many other community, charitable , and religious organizations and the facilities are used to help facilitate meetings between representatives of these divers organizations.
Expenses for above: $903,544.
It shows no lobbying activities.
Room and board income relates to persons in ministry reimbursing the foundation for expenses incurred for supplying living accommodations.
Amount: $27,055
Part VI line 80 asks for names of related organizations which includes the following:
c street center
It also shows a grant of $10,000 to the C Street Center.
There is no Form 990 for C Street Center:
http://www.charitygovernance.com/charity_governance/2010/02/where-is-senator-grassley-and-his-senate-inquiry.html
Posted by: Rich | March 6, 2010 11:39 PM
Sorry about the delay. Here's the promised liveblog of Ed's appearance.
Live-blogging Ed on Rachel
9:20 shifty eyes. Blink, half smile. Obviously total newbie. Trying not to react. Smiling inside. Haircut: bad. Beard: very bad, kind of a well-groomed unkemptness. Open shirt, red under jacket—poker player. Untrustworthy. Stupak has Blagojevitch hair-flow, carefully groomed small-town barber-look. Brayton obviously coiffed at Hair Today just a few hours ago. New rule: never appear with more hair than a female host, even if she's a devotee of Sappho.
9:23 Fail on sat-link delay. Eye-shift. Talkover. No smug Village smile. No overcasual “hey.” Not a good start, but MSNBC hasn’t pulled plug yet. Fingercross.
9:29 Ed doesn’t follow cam on dolly-pull. We see monitor is large flat-screen, nothing behind it. Serves purpose of indicating that turf is Maddow’s and that Brayton is just another 2-d talking head with local knowledge.
9:33 Sharp tsk on intake of breath in first response. Flick-away eyes another count against honesty. On the whole a collapse. Nine “uh”’s in first sentence. Opens with compound-complex; follows with lengthy appositive statement and parenthetical. Syntactical disaster.
9:51 Voice a rasping bari-bass, sounds like a man cutting plexiglass with a breadknife. Michigan accent a disastrous bonus. “Ah, he, his his a”—prounoun disaster equivalent to Heath’s thirteen-pronoun stutter-fail of July 13, 1972.
9:59-10:??? WAY too long setup for first legendary encounter with Stupak. “I did this, I did that…” Big woop. Get to the sex. Rachel's question setup worthy of legendary gasbag Kerri Miller of Minnesota Public Radio who once asked her guest a 42-minute question and thus became the first PR interviewer ever to break the coveted “Q barrier” in which an entire show passes without the guest uttering a syllable.
10:16 OK, tape loops of C-street lift-pan and six bits of Stupak at the Lectern have pierced even my tolerance for easy repetitive crapola. Predict zoom-stills will be next. But Stupak’s window is 33% bigger than Brayton’s. Yes, I measured.
10:54 Maddow’s desire to get her mike back from who is this guy anyway is audible. Seat-squeaks, subvocalizations, and the telltale Question Lift Stutter cover her frantic gestures off-cam to producer—Who is this Guy and Can We Get Away With the Old ‘Oops Lost the Uplink’ Trick One More Time.
10:59 Rachel says, “…sounds like you’re sort of with me on this….” She’s into you.
11:05 Never noticed this before, but there are big Art-Deco searchlights playing over the Empire State Building in Rachel’s background. I was doubtful before, but now I see that she is indeed looking out over the New York skyline, circa 1939. Ed’s background, meanwhile, is a cranberry bog.
11:10 OK, another weird boom shot. This time Ed’s on the flat-screen, patiently waiting out Rachel and her hand-gestures. Both of them look like half-dome in that good Ansel Adams pic, you know the one.
11:16 by my protractor, Ed’s thin-lipped Mouth of Seriousness is about 9 degrees off true. Broadcast protocols require nothing less than four degrees off-level, but I guess cable is slipping. Mouthline coaching can raise Ed’s chance of going on Colbert.
11:24 “I did the same thing you did.” Because I love you, Rachel. I know it’s hopeless, but I’ll do the same thing you do, no matter what.
11:47 Satellite trans zik damages the word “mentor”. Too bad. Part of a long damning riff Ed gets off in which he manages to buttsmooch both Sharlett and Maddow in a single dependent clause.
11:56 It’s over. Noise in the background—sounds like somebody dropping a cookie sheet, an 18” InsulAire I would guess. You don’t have to show me Rachel’s sound designer reeling out of the CR, pale and nauseated, to know that Ed’s career as a Cable Head is over. If you don’t have sound discipline in the remote studio, you will not go far.
11:59 Big comeback. Ed obviously hears the sound gaffe and responds with a classy bit of talking head poise—a conditional if-then in the second person. Well played, Mr. Brayton. Well played.
12:12 “May only last for a certain period of time.” David Brooks-quality temporizing. I’m thinking “Meet the Press.”
12:16 “follow the tracks”—Too obvious demonization? Heavy-handed, like a John Boehner tanning-bed joke?
12:32 Too heavily based on Sharlett? I can see Maddow worrying that she’s losing center stage.
12:56 Ed does an excellent job of waiting out Rachel’s interminable Leon Uris-novel of a question. It’s clear that he needs to sigh but he maintains, with no eye-flicks. He’s definitely ready for the big time.
13:05 Ed absorbs Rachel’s eyebrow quip beautifully, revealing no indication that he has even heard the deathly insult, or that he would even acknowledge that his eyebrows’ width clearly predict a severe winter for Labrador, Newfoundland, PEI and eastern Maine.
13:35 Ed’s breathing seems labored, especially in and around the word “Sheboygan.” Is this Ed’s Nixon Sweat moment?
13:48 Is it my imagination, or has Ed just claimed that Stupak is Americans United for the Separation of Church and State’s bitch?
14:08 Ed goes all ‘conditions of rebuttal’ on Stupak, throwing him lifelines of moderateness. But they put up Stupak’s Congressional Record headshot with the creepy zoom-push to show Ed just who is boss. Hometown dupe may think he’s a moderate, but MSNBC knows better: Mussolini.
14:27 Ouch. Ed repeats “fairly moderate guy,” thus negating his agent’s work to copyright the phrase and market Ed around as the “fairly moderate guy” guy to the Sunday shows. Catchphrases must be cultivated carefully!
14:34 Brayton uses “dander”. Between the two—Brayton and Stupak—there are at least six bushels of hair. Coincidence?
14:50 Rachel drops you like a hot one, and uses the phrase “flush out.” Not good.
15:00 One more awkward sat delay. Next time, as you hear her start to sign off, just start smiling and nodding. Didn’t your publicist tell you?
Overall Brayton acquits himself well. One scoop away from Stewart. Congrats.
ice
Posted by: ice9 | March 6, 2010 11:52 PM
Ed, you reported in July that Rep. Stupak was housed in the Cedars and was a mentor there. http://michiganmessenger.com/23484/stupak-denies-knowledge-of-connections-to-mysterious-c-street-house The address of the Cedars is the same address as what was in the Form 990 I posted earlier for the Fellowship Foundation.
Posted by: Rich | March 6, 2010 11:53 PM
ice9-
You clearly have too much time on your hands, but that's still damn funny.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 7, 2010 2:07 AM
Ed stated @ 50:
I'm guessing yesterday was the first time ice9 took a nap.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 7, 2010 7:05 AM
You laugh now, but I think live-blogging is the profit-making trend of the future.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | March 7, 2010 9:54 AM
ice9 @ 48
That totally made my morning! Too freakin' funny!
Posted by: Chris Rodda | March 7, 2010 12:12 PM
Thanks Mr. Heath. I apologize for being uninformed and I make no such claim that I'd be a very effective speaker of the house, just a snarky commentator on Ed's blog page.
The list and the RCP link are very helpful.
Thanks.
Posted by: Drake33 | March 7, 2010 11:00 PM