I want to go back and look at that really interesting interview between Bart Stupak and Chris Matthews from last night. He’s talking like a tough guy, but he’s really talking about compromising. First, he’s obsessed with calling his amendment “current law,” which is completely false. But when Matthews asks him about how many members he has available to block the bill, he says this:

MATTHEWS: How many members do you have that will fight to the finish against a conference report, for example, that might come back with that language missing?

STUPAK: Well, I haven’t really gone and counted. And we want to see what a conference report looks like. Everyone keeps telling us we’re going to keep current language. That’s what my amendment is. The Stupak amendment is nothing more than
current language. And, if they keep current language, I guess we don’t have to worry about it.

The mysterious nature of just who is in Stupak’s coalition has actually served him well in this debate. He’s counted as few as 10 and as many as 40 members who would join him in blocking the bill if he didn’t get his way. In this case, he simply says he hasn’t counted, even though earlier in the day he cited “10, 15, 20 members” who would join him in taking down the bill. Stupak has been able to bluff his way through so far, probably because the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has been doing the counting for him. But nobody really knows how many people are on board with him, especially after all the controversy. Stupak is taking the fire, and those joining him should as well.

Then there was this bit:

MATTHEWS: Is there any compromise beyond which we have not reached yet? Is there any way to reach a compromise between you, and, say, the Senate language that they’re talking about, the Lois Capps approach, which is say that the money will be segregated?

STUPAK: Well — well, that’s not Lois Capps’ approach. Lois Capps said there must be abortion coverage. It would be covered. You could use money to pay for abortions. Everyone had to pay $1 per month in the public option to pay for abortion coverage. Capps’ language was — is nothing what they’re talking about in the Senate. The Senate, they’re talking about segregating funds. We’re willing to look at it. That’s been offered in the past. And you know what? When we went to offer to segregate the funds — it’s called the Dornan amendment — we were flatly rejected. They wouldn’t even let us offer the Dornan amendment, which says segregate the funds. So, I guess, on our side, we’re seeming to wanting it both ways. When it’s in their interest, then, suddenly, they want to segregate funds. But went we ask that there be a segregation of funds, as in the Dornan amendment, we — they just shut us down. They — they’re just — they won’t give us our amendments.

First of all, I don’t know what Stupak is talking about with respect to the Capps amendment. “We have a different interpretation of the language than he does,” Capps’ spokesman Emily Kryder told me today. The language of the Capps amendment is right here. It provides access to at least one plan in the exchange that covers abortion services, but right on page four it says: “SEGREGATION OF FUNDS.” It completely clarifies that public funding cannot be used to pay for abortion services, but allows private funds from patient premiums to do so, and segregates those funds. Stupak is being very sloppy with his language in demonizing the Capps amendment, and he’s flat-out lying about segregation of funds.

And interestingly, he sounds open to a compromise along the lines of segregation of funds, while whining about how he didn’t get his amendment introduced on that (keep in mind that the Stupak amendment was the ONLY amendment voted on the floor of the House – every other member had no opportunity to amend the bill on the floor, only in committee). It sounds like Stupak is setting up the Senate version as the compromise, even though it doesn’t differ from the Capps language which he demonizes. Stupak acknowledges that “a couple senators” are working on a compromise. He says that nobody can tell him where the language is over-broad, which again is again just dead wrong. But he’s signaling the compromise very clearly:

STUPAK: Everyone agrees, but do we have to put a line in there that says, look, you can still have public — you can private funding for abortion? I mean, my amendment says that. But if you want a clarification, we’re willing to put that in there. We are not restricting insurance policies or individuals from using their own money to get abortion service.

MATTHEWS: Would you be open to an amendment to the bill that comes out of conference that says, even though no federal spending will go for abortion to support, to subsidize a policy which covers abortion, that insurance companies that now provide that kind of coverage to private customers must continue to offer it? Would you be open to that language?

STUPAK: As long as they pay for that policy 100 percent out of their pocket, I have no problem with that language [...] So, again, is there some common language? I think there probably is, because I think the ultimate goal here for everybody is to have health care for all Americans.

Perhaps he’s just trying to paint himself as the virtuous guy here and everyone else as an extremist. However, in practical terms, this means he’s not really standing up for his amendment as a make-or-break element.

Considering how long it has taken for choice groups to find their voice, perhaps that’s a good thing.

What I would have really liked Matthews to ask Stupak is about his residence at the no longer tax-exempt C Street, but I guess that’s too much to ask.