Stupak Sells Out
Well, well… I guess dead babies do have a value on the open market.
Three airports in the district of infamous fence-sitting and ultimately kowtowing Democrat Bart Stupak were awarded $726,409 in grants by the Obama Administration just two days before a vote on Obama and Pelosi’s government takeover of healthcare.
I assume that Stupak has a mom or grandmother or brother or friend who is actually pro-life. I hope they give him an earful.
They gave money to Boehner and Bachmann’s district too through this competitive grant process. Maybe the FAA was after their votes on health care reform as well?
Seriously, you’d be an absolute idiot to think that Ben Nelson could get a zillion dollars for Nebraska but Bart Stupak, with infinitely more leverage, would bargain away a vote for three-quarters of a million dollars in airport money.
Also, as an FYI, your link doesn’t work, at least not for me. I’m getting a 403.6 error.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on March 23, 2010 at 1344 hrs
Seriously, you’d be an absolute idiot to think that Ben Nelson could get a zillion dollars for Nebraska but Bart Stupak, with infinitely more leverage, would bargain away a vote for three-quarters of a million dollars in airport money.
Well, at least you admit that bribery was the only way anyone could get such a disastrous piece of hot steaming legislation to pass.
Perhaps you are right though, RS… I would think that Bart Stupak would have needed a whole lot more than that to sell out his beliefs and all the constituents who voted for him based on his position. Perhaps the rest of the bribes just have not been seen in the light of the day yet… or maybe, just maybe, Bart is simply a weak unprincipled man who bent to pressure because, in the end, no matter what they tell you, a Democrat is a Democrat.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1408 hrs
Some whores are cheaper than others. What can I tell you?
Posted by Owen on March 23, 2010 at 1410 hrs
It does seem naive to think this bought Stupak’s vote, although the timing is suspect. In terms of worthless airport funding, Murtha made him look like a piker.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1412 hrs
@#2: I’m not sure I admitted any such thing, at least on that level. Ben Nelson, yeah, I’m pretty comfortable saying that Nelson got bought off. Stupak, probably not, certainly not with money that his district was already slated to receive. I’m pretty confident that’s what conservatives would find if they bothered to file an FOIA request for the grant scoring. But I get that lazy conjecture is easier and more convenient. Whether Stupak gets something in the future as a result of this, who knows. Maybe? But that’s just the same kinds of politics the GOP played to find its votes for Medicare Part D. I wish our world could be a little more Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but we are where we are, I guess.
And by your logic Owen, should we also be asking what Paul Ryan took for his vote on Part D? Surely given his aggressive stance against the expansion of government on matters of health care, he had to have been paid off for his vote, right? Because that vote created an even larger unfunded liability than this bill does.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on March 23, 2010 at 1425 hrs
And by your logic Owen, should we also be asking what Paul Ryan took for his vote on Part D? Surely given his aggressive stance against the expansion of government on matters of health care, he had to have been paid off for his vote, right? Because that vote created an even larger unfunded liability than this bill does.
Why do discussions always devolve into this? Sure, we should look into it. It’s probably true, and probably just as wrong. Why are we always digging for hypocrisy from others?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1456 hrs
Why are we always digging for hypocrisy from others?
Because sometimes “they did it too” is the only manageable defense in support of something that you know was wrong but you secretly support, especially when it got you what you wanted.
Bribery is bad, it clearly happened on many levels and in multiple cases, it got a bad bill passed, I like that bill, I must defend the bribery because the end justifies the means…ok, then they did it too! See, it’s ok now.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1552 hrs
@Jason: Because consistency is often (not always) a reflection of one’s authenticity. The plague of the GOP is that so many of its members have historically been willing to talk about small government but so few of them are willing to put their money where their mouth is when they are actually empowered to do something. I think that’s something most everyone here, conservative, liberal, or otherwise, can recognize.
It’s not that I suspect that the conservative base is inconsistent. I would be inclined to believe that most conservatives opposed both bills. And I’m inclined to believe that if the guy pushing this health care bill was a Republican, Paul Ryan would’ve voted for it.
So there’s your problem: that Paul Ryan is the guy out front complaining about the cost of a health care bill that is funded (at least according to the CBO), a guy who was largely complicit when it came to voting for a health care bill (Part D) that was entirely unfunded. Is there any record of a mea culpa on Part D from Ryan? It might improve his credibility and the credibility of his colleagues on this issue.
Again, it’s all a matter of trust, which is the fundamental issue that’s killed the GOP in the last five years. Anyone involved in politics can tell you that rage is a difficult emotion to sustain, and that’s really what the whole Tea Party movement has centered on so far. It’s not centered on the development of thoughtful policy. It’s centered on anger. But people generally don’t like being angry. Anger is exhausting. So the question is, what can the GOP do to reestablish trust with voters? That’s what will win people back in the long term.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on March 23, 2010 at 1604 hrs
Fair enough RS. I read it more like a negative against Owen for not giving fair text to Ryan’s prior actions. I can agree with your viewpoint of one of the current issues plaguing the GOP.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1710 hrs
The bill passed with or without Stupack’s vote.
It was dead a month ago - abortion provision or not .
It passed because the insurance companies showed their true nature by raising costs 40% because anyone dared to challenge their monopoly over 16% of our economy.
Their arrogance was so astonishing that bought and paid for politico’s switched their vote.
and when they’re gone- good riddance
This bill is as historic as the passing of social security (another liberal invention that was supposed to cause the earth to crash into the sun)Not sure Jesus checked with his accountant before he said “Blessed are the poor or the meek”
Nor did he say something about “I only help those who help themselves “
(somebody Conservative said that for him )Call me crazy and call me someone who cares as much about babies after they"re born as before
As usual, I’m on the side with the Big Guy in all these matters.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1721 hrs
Nor did he say something about “I only help those who help themselves “
(somebody Conservative said that for him )No, He said in 2 Thessalonians 3:10-14
10For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
11For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
12Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
13But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing.
14And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.Call me crazy and call me someone who cares as much about babies after they"re born as before
As usual, I’m on the side with the Big Guy in all these matters.
It’s hard to care for them after they are born if someone takes a taxpayer funded vacuum and sucks them up, now isn’t it? You can’t say you care about babies before they are born and then support a bill that will certainly fund abortions.
Remember, He also said in Jermiah 1:5
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.If you are on the side with the Big Guy, then I suggest that you pay closer attention to the owners manual he gave you that explains how to do that…. unless of course you really meant Barack Obama… then you are right on the money.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1820 hrs
Lets first state the obvious ... he got absolutely nothing with Obama’s executive order. Anyone who wants to try and sell the bag of dung that the executive order means anything is simply being a hack.
We also know that Stupak told a town hall gathering in Cheboygan, MI last year that if the bill had everything in it he wanted except for the abortion language he would vote for it.
Maybe they had the votes to pass it without him and his so called ‘gang of 5’ and maybe they didn’t. Maybe his pay off was, or included the airport grants, and maybe they weren’t. I’m not sure it even really matters. But if they had them already, then there was no need for him to fall on his sword, except to give someone else in the Party political cover.
What is clear though is that these are our choices in evaluating Stupak:
A. He never intended to hold out for the abortion language in the reconcilliation bill, in which case, he’s nothing but a disingenous grandstanding attention whore or
B. He did sell out for airport grants, and/or something else we know nothing about (yet), in which case, he whores out his ‘right to life’ principles for government pork or cushy jobs when he loses in November or
C. He got muscled into the votes by threats from the leadership that he’d lose his committee assignments, and/or prime office space, and/or his parking spot, or god knows what other perks the leadership throws the way of its members who tow the line on critical votes in which case, he put he whores out his ‘right to life’ principles for cushy assignments and job perks or
D. He got muscled into the vote by threats from the leadership and Democrat party to make sure he got a primary opponent (ala Joe Lieberman) and absolutely no help from the party should he escape it when he heads to the general, in which case he whores out his ‘right to life’ principles for job security or
E. He got muscled into voting for this to give some other Dem the cover to vote no, in which case he whored out his ‘right to life’ principles in order to try and protect his party’s majority in November or
F. He truly believed that the executive order actually had any real legal standing should it ever reach a court room, in which case he’s a blithering idiot or
G. Some combination of any of the above.However it comes down, he looks like what he is ... a liar, a whore, a pussy, or an idiot ... and not the least bit committed to the ‘right to life’ principles he has spent the last however many months saying he was committed to (sort of). Take your pick ( and check all you feel apply).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 1856 hrs
Stupak got a paycheck on Friday, it must have been his way of selling out his vote.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 2012 hrs
For anyone who is interested, here’s a link to the Stupak video that TD referenced.
In politics, inside baseball is always about the long game, the next battle. This vote isn’t going cost Stupak his seat, so in terms of self-preservation it doesn’t matter which way he votes. We can take that off the table. If Stupak believed (correctly or not) that Pelosi was going to get the votes regardless, it makes no sense for him to not try to get something for a yes vote, even if it’s just that executive order. If you think an EO is trivial, it’s possible that reflects a lack of bargaining power on Stupak’s part in the end game, which is a credit to Nancy Pelosi. If Stupak’s a no and the bill passes, he loses on both counts. The bill passes anyway and he gets nothing out of the vote. The pro-life community canonizes him, sure, but how’s that going to help him get anything done? Their silly awards are worthless.
Stupak’s earlier remarks buy him cover from being called a hypocrite - he was on record saying abortion wouldn’t necessarily be the deciding factor. He may get dinged in the pro-life community but the reality there is that the pro-life community still needs Stupak since he’s a member of the governing party who’s historically been sensitive to their concerns. Stupak’s value to the pro-life community only exists so long as the Democrats are in power and he likely knows that.
In the end, Stupak’s decision also bought cover for a couple of other members of his bloc who probably would’ve struggled to answer questions back home had they switched without Stupak. So he votes yes believing his vote may ultimately not be relevant to the outcome, he gets a guarantee on an EO from Obama, scores some goodwill points with his pro-life Dem colleagues, and leadership’s happy because he wasn’t an obstacle to their progress.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on March 23, 2010 at 2015 hrs
I don’t care if Stupak got a suitcase of cash or thirty shiny dimes, he sold out the pro-life movement and put an end to to the myth of the pro-life Democrat.
Posted by james Wigderson on March 23, 2010 at 2131 hrs
Don’t be so sure that Stupak is safe. I was raised in that district. It is full of pro-life, catholic, conservative, union families. They didn’t support this bill and they expected Stupak to stick to his guns. They won’t be easily forgive him.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 2146 hrs
If Stupak is a baby-killer, what does that make the Pope and every other Catholic priest who didn’t drive the child-molesting priests out of the church, prefering instead to shuffle them of to other parishs, cover up the transgressions, etc.? Doesn’t that make the Pope and the other lame-ass priests child molesters themselves?
After all, Stupak has never personally performed an abortion, yet you label him a baby-killer. Aren’t the Pope the the other enablers child molesters?
Fair is fair, folks. Be consistent!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 23, 2010 at 2219 hrs
Abortion is one issue, and if it’s the only issue you really care about, then I can appreciate why you’d be mad at Stupak even though he was completely up front about his endgame. For the overwhelming majority of us, it’s not the only issue though. Most of us have voted for pro-life and pro-choice candidates in our lifetimes. I don’t think that makes us unprincipled.
Abortion is one of many issues I consider when casting a vote. I would prefer my candidates to be pro-life but if they are going to be raging idiots on every other issue under the sun I have no problem voting for the other guy. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter anyway. Attitudes on abortion have to change from the bottom up. The issue is so politically deadlocked that it doesn’t matter whether a politician is pro-life or pro-choice. Nothing’s going to change.
I’d laugh someday if there’s a bill that reforms Social Security and Medicare to a conservative’s liking, eliminates the capital gains tax, lowers income taxes for everyone, but calls for the federal government to pay for exactly one abortion. In fact, I think if I ever held elected office I would draft exactly that bill.
Also RO, by the Stupak Rule re. the airport grants, we can definitely assume that the Pope molested a bunch of kids. After all, we know that many leaders in the Catholic church did molest kids, and we also know that the Pope is a leader in the Catholic church. We can also reasonably assume that all of the boy lovers have not been discovered yet. So by the Stupak Rule, unless Catholics can prove conclusively that the Pope did not fondle little boys, we may presume his guilt, even without evidence.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on March 23, 2010 at 2248 hrs
respectfully, son of liberty
you can quote a chapter or verse from that good book to justify any position you choose to (and you just did)
I more of a Top 10 -Classic kind of guy- and the sermon on the mount was a biggie for me .
I get that folks are against abortion.
What I don’t get is the sanctimonious justifications that folks who count themselves to be “religious” use to avoid worrying about the plight of others after birth.
When Jocelyn Elders said that the right was ” in love with the fetus” , she was roundly criticized .
She committed what Michael Kinsley called a “gaffe”
That is when a politician accidentally tells the truth.
The Right is all about bringing babies into the world but much much less about seeing that they are cared for once they get here
I hear a lot about private charities from the right -and then we quickly move on to God’s other agenda
-making sure we have the right books in libraries
-stopping folks with alternative lifestyles from “jamming it down our throats-(THE #1 Republican talking point during health care, it must have polled off the charts)
-and to promote what Jesus really was all about-lower taxes.
So, I get it, Abortion is wrong and every child needs a chance in life.
Now just follow through on the original thought -even if it costs you a few of those precious remaining $ dollars the government hasn"t already stolen from you.
Can’t you find anyplace in your bible where it says-“help the kid after birth because no one else will ?”
I’m sure you do this personally, you seem like a smart ,caring person in print
(you were in fact once “the Family guy”)Now….... talk to your pals in the club who don"t
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 24, 2010 at 1404 hrs
The Right is all about bringing babies into the world but much much less about seeing that they are cared for once they get here
And you know this, how?
Now just follow through on the original thought
And you know he doesn’t, how?
Sorry man, you have some serious logical fallacy issues.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 24, 2010 at 1843 hrs
Actually Mark, I don’t know anyone who acts in the fashion you describe. I’m not even sure what you are implying. If you are saying that compassionate people should support the abortions in Obamacare because it somehow takes care of babies, then I find that laughable. If you are implying something else, then you should be a bit more plain about it.
you can quote a chapter or verse from that good book to justify any position you choose to
The Book says what it says… I can quote parts for you, but the story is there. Read the whole thing for yourself if you’d like to know what it says… but please don’t tell me that I should interpret things your way or tell me which of God’s “agendas” I am following. Agendas are for politicians and ideologues…
Jesus had nothing to do with taxes. Taxes are the way Caesar takes from us. They are a way that a government of flawed humans controls other humans and tries to impose it’s “agenda”. Paying taxes is not caring for the down trodden…. and to believe that God’s goal for us was to pay taxes to help the poor is to have missed the message completely. YOU are supposed to help people yourself and spread the message… not get Barack and Nancy and Harry to force others to do it for you in a secular vacuum that shrouds God under a tarp.
There is a vast difference between people who are in need and people who feel that they HAVE needs. God asks us to help those who can’t help themselves… not those who won’t help themselves.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 25, 2010 at 1013 hrs
Total Entries: 20001
Total Comments: 134057
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 03:10 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 02:38 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 111
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 04:17 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).