Everyone knows by now that Congressman Bart Stupak is retiring. And I’ve seen it reported everywhere that he’s “paying the price” for his awful and traitorous vote towards the unborn. But isn’t it possible that Stupak, far from paying the price is simply collecting on the price of his vote?
I find it hard to believe that a congressman didn’t understand that after months of championing the pro-life cause that he would become reviled for turning on them. I think he was smart enough to know his name would become a derogatory verb. I think that when Bart Stupak was negotiating with the White House he wasn’t negotiating like Ben Nelson for the Cornhusker Kickback for Nebraska. Stupak was in there for Stupak. And he knew that a vote for Obamacare would end his career so he was negotiating for his next career.
I say we should all focus on Stupak’s next career. I’m gonna’ bet it’s darn lucrative. It’ll be a lot more than thirty silver pieces.
April 12, 2010 at 4:20 am
You are probably smarter then all the media idiots. I would bet on him becoming one of Obama's Czar's
April 12, 2010 at 4:33 am
please correct: congressman from Michigan, not Tennessee.
Joe K
April 12, 2010 at 4:34 am
Bingo. He'll be well paid for his acts.
April 12, 2010 at 5:35 am
That is an interesting observation… I wonder if it will pan out that way. Part of me wonders if Stupak knew that there was no way of blocking the passage… so this was his best effort at impeding it. In which case, I think the attacks on him are not warranted. After all, he did successfully get the proper prohibitions in the house version the first go around….
April 12, 2010 at 10:04 am
When James Carville says the Democrats will be in power for the next 40 years – hauntingly biblical number, btw – I begin to feel like Fox Mulder and see conspiracy starting years ago.
Did "The Rock", Dwayne Johnson, become a popular action movie star because his nickname wd associate with "Barack" and lodge securely in the minds of drone voting ninnies who wd stand on street corners during the election? How far back did this grooming of the crown prince go? And who is the next in-line we don't even see yet?
Arright, it can't be that well – planned … can it? Naaah …
April 12, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Stupak voted for the bill because Obama promised an executive order to prohibit new funds for abortion. I agree with Anonymous–the attacks on him are not warranted.
April 12, 2010 at 1:45 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
April 12, 2010 at 2:17 pm
I've been waiting for someone to point this out. It will be interesting to see what transpires. I'm interested to find out what the going price is for a good "Family Name"(well previously good family name).
April 12, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Brian, the executive order is worthless. It can be changed whenever the President wants, and has no binding force over the law. In a court challenge, the wording of the law will override the EO. If it even goes to a court challenge. There are plenty of ways money can be funneled to abortion services without directly funding abortions (e.g., funding family health clinics that will be required to provide abortion services). And there are other problems besides abortion, like the lack of a conscience clause and concerns about end-of-life care, that weren't covered by the executive order.
I was always worried that the near-exclusive concentration on abortion in this bill would undermine opposition to other facets. Once abortion was sort-of dealt with through the EO, the opposition to the bill disappeared even though it is still horribly flawed in other ways, flaws that weren't touched because of the focus on abortion. A cynical part of me says that the Dems purposely fought so hard on abortion in order to redirect the focus away from those other flaws, and that they knew when they "caved" on abortion, even minimally, it would be enough success that the other flaws would be overlooked and the bill would be passed. Could direct abortion funding have been a decoy, a planned "give-away" intended to get other things through?
If Pelosi had the votes to pass the bill without Stupak, then she and the President wouldn't have bothered to make a deal with him, unless they did it to provide cover for other nominally pro-life Democrats who then could vote against the bill so they can continue to claim to be pro-life for the next election. A sacrifice, where Stupak is out but some other congressmen have a better chance at scoring. Advancing the runners, as it were.
I fully expect Stupak to be rewarded for his actions. I just hope the Senate Republicans stick to their guns and, as Mitch McConnell said they would, block the rewards as best they can when the President starts appointing Stupak and others to various positions.
April 12, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Stupak caved. If he had been so stupid as to wait for the election, he would have been buried with the epitaph, "Defeated." Moral of the story… never ever trust any demokrat.
April 13, 2010 at 1:53 pm
What does it profit a maggot if it gains a rotting carcass but gets eternal damnation? (very loose translation from Bible but preferred in this particular case)
April 13, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Bart the anti-hero has proved two things:
1) There is no such thing as a pro-life Democrat in politics
2) Democrats for life is a worthless organization.