Bart Stupak: Private, public dollars .... baaaaaah, what's the difference

Cry for Attention (0.00 / 0)

It's like a cry for attention. I saw him interviewed awhile back on PBS's NOW. You could see and hear how he feels that he's been ignored/passed by for years by the Democratic party because he's anti-abortion. This is his chance it seems to make his point about his opposition to abortion, even if it derails much-needed health care reform for millions of living, breathing, Americans.  

---

by: rich @ Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 23:56:41 PM UTC

PRIMARY CHALLENGER!?! (0.00 / 0)

A little over six weeks left to go before the filing deadline -- who is going to challenge Stupak in the primary?  Whoever does - he or SHE (wouldn't that be cool?) will have plenty of money.

There's a Facebook page set up called "If Bart Stupak opposes health care reform, I will donate to his opponent."

It already has 610 fans.  His official page only has 998 fans.  

---

by: Buster Vainamoinen @ Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 02:42:52 AM UTC

1st Congressional District (4.00 / 2)

How many of those fans live in the First Michigan Congressional District?  Stupak is as likely to be defeated by a primary opponent as he is by a Republican.  Which is, not very likely at all.  Northern Michigan is very happy with Stupak.

---

by: Brady @ Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 02:55:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Never realized (0.00 / 0)

I'd never quite realized how self-important Stupak was.  He has come across really whiney and self-righteous on television.  Health care be damned, he's doesn't care.  He's found a spotlight and he's going to milk every minute of it.  To choose this battle or all battles to make his point is so incredibly selfish and consequential it's not even funny.

BTW, Brady is right.  Stupak is basically a congressman-for-life if he so chooses.  It's just how Yooper politics has always worked, and ironically enough it's very similar to how Detroit politics work.

Wouldn't it be great if Stupak was just as convicted about the right for affordable health care for existing human beings as he was potential ones?  

The fetishizing of the fetus continues...

---

by: MiddleGrandGuy @ Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 10:03:48 AM UTC

Bart's convictions (0.00 / 0)

You know, Bart Stupak is really a very decent, principled guy, and the closest thing to political power the UP will ever have as long as there are term limits on state offices.  Like so many, when it comes to a moral conviction, he cannot see past his own position, and he is very, very Catholic.  To be honest, and I don't say this lightly, because I consider him a friend, I don't think Bart is deep-thinking enough to understand how his own (honestly held) moral position is a detriment to the nation as a whole.

---

by: jellyfishhal @ Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 02:39:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bart's convictions (0.00 / 0)

You know, I cut my finger rather badly yesterday morning.  It took about three hours for me to get the initial bleed to stop (to be sure, not a lot of blood came out, but it reopened basically anytime I moved it).  Probably should have gone to the hospital for stitches, but I have no health insurance and can't afford the out-of-pocket costs.

I'm lucky that my work history has frequently required that I get first aid training and get refresher training. I'm also lucky that I'm smart enough to have stocked up on basic first aid items like gauze, tape, bandages, and antibiotic ointment.

Back when Stupak was first making health care reform all about his beliefs on abortion, I kind of gave him a pass because, although I'm pro-choice, I'm a lot more pro-health care reform and felt that reform that was not purely pro-choice was better than no health care reform at all (see above paragraph).  And, he said that as long as he got a vote, he'd support health care reform even if he wound up losing.  All he wanted was an ability to express his personal convictions.

Well, he had that opportunity.  He won his vote in the House, but not in the Senate.  Now, he basically is going back on his word and putting his convictions over my finger.  It's understandable, I guess, since I've never met the guy and my finger will very probably heal without lasting effect (I'm just that good at putting Band-aids and Neosporin on wounds).  But, I'm not happy about it.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 12:46:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Votes for passage (0.00 / 0)

It was my understanding that Democrats have a 78 seat majority in the U.S. House.  The media says Stupak's group of pro-Life Democrats is only 12 people.  So that would mean that even if they vote "no", there should still be plenty of votes for passage without the Republicans.  Could Yvette or someone else familiar with the process explain who these other 66+ Dem holdouts are who are preventing the majority necessary for passage?  Are these Blue Dogs representing majority Republican districts?  Are they people on the left who believe this bill sets back the goal of single-payer health care?  If Stupak and his group only amount to a dozen members of Congress out of a 78 seat majority, the abortion issue seems to be getting a lot more attention than it deserves.

---

by: Brady @ Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 12:27:59 PM UTC

The face of the pro-life stance (0.00 / 0)

I think that the reason this is generating so much heat is that Mr. Stupak has become the face of the pro-life side of the argument.  With Democratic control of the government right now, the pro-choice side doesn't really have a good "spokesperson" to act as a foil.  Enter Bart Stupak to bring the issue back into the forefront.  

---

by: Buster Vainamoinen @ Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 14:04:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Other Dems (0.00 / 0)

That's doesn't really answer my question though of why the bill lacks the votes for passage when only 12 Dems out of a 78 seat majority are "no" votes due to the abortion issue.  What about the other 66?

---

by: Brady @ Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 14:25:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stupak and the Gang of Twelve (0.00 / 0)

Assuming a Senate bill without Stupak's personal beliefs included reaches the House floor what are we going to see? A Democratic filibuster led by Stupak and the rest of his closed minded twelve? Don't be so sure Yooper politics will ensure him lifetime employment if he pulls that caper.

Prima Donna and self important as he believes himself to be I just wonder what the troopers who served with him think. And why did he leave the MSP? Does he still have any contact with them?  

---

by: cueball @ Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 17:49:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not sure if you were being serious (4.00 / 3)

but the filibuster exists in the Senate only. Stupak is in the House.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 18:32:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stupak (1.00 / 1)

Sorry for the slip on gas bagging something to death. I still wonder if Stupak is drwaing a disblility pension for alledged injuries received while a member of the MSP.

---

by: cueball @ Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 02:33:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're right (0.00 / 0)

but it still doesn't make Stupak less of a self-aggrandizing douche...

If he was serious about concern over government funding health care with abortion provisions he would push from stripping out the subsidized abortions with the tax-free component of employee based health care...

He would do that if he was a principled individual and not a self-aggrandizing douche...

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 18:36:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bart Stupak (0.00 / 0)

I know Bart, and he's a reliable Democrat, but very mysterious on C Street and too righteous by far on his own moral principles re: abortion as opposed to health care for the entire country.  The thing that really hit me today was his statement that he doubts "they" have enough votes to pass the health bill.  Who is "they", Bart?  Your fellow Democrats?  If we are "they", who is "we"?

---

by: jellyfishhal @ Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 02:32:16 AM UTC

Stupak's reasoning (0.00 / 0)

I'm of the opinion that legislators aren't elected and paid to represent their own personal beliefs, but instead those of the majority they represent or at least the majority welfare of those they represent.

With Stupak's district, 1/2 his constituents are Republicans who oppose real health care reform.  1/4 are people who would strongly prefer a single-payer system.  And 1/6 are Pro-Life Democrats like Stupak.  That leaves only a small minority of people in Stupak's district who really want him to support this legislation.

Stupak is not a Blue Dog Democrat.  On most issues he's rather liberal.  But on this one he's standing firm.  I suspect it's less about Stupak personally than it is Michigan 1st Congressional District.  Northern Michigan voters overall aren't very enthusiastic about this bill for a variety of reasons.

---

by: Brady @ Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 05:09:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're not elected to represent anyone's opinion... (0.00 / 0)

You're elected to do what's in the best interests of your district, not represent the opinions of the people there.  Sound elitist? Well, my guess is that the people of the 1st District would by and large benefit more from health care reform than not.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 12:52:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who you represent (4.00 / 2)

I agree fully that the constituents of the 1st District would benefit from health care reform, even though most of them don't know it.  Does that sound elitist?  And I do believe there is a place for religion in government - I would expect public officials to be informed and guided by their religious views.  Having said that, I do not think that Bart is serving his constituents or his country well by allowing this one conviction to obscure all else.  I would invite you to organize a pro-choice rally in the UP, and to see how many Democrats show up.  The UP is still largely Democratic, but that goes mainly to labor roots.  It is almost universally pro-gun and anti-choice.

---

by: jellyfishhal @ Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 16:54:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

... (0.00 / 0)

We don't disagree on anything.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 17:24:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A pro-choice rally in the U.P. you say? (0.00 / 0)

Hmmmmm....  

---

by: Buster Vainamoinen @ Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 21:29:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Never had Venn diagrams (0.00 / 0)

when you were in school Brady?

It's the only way to explain why you would make mistakes in your "assessment" of who supports what in the district...

Oh yeah, and I notice a complete lack of any information to support your claim.

Conventional Wisdom might be like money to the political class, but to those of us in the real world...it just sounds stupid.

What is he standing firm on, the bill doesn't nothing to change the status quo on abortion. He is grandstanding to make up for the fact that he's been in Congress for a very long time and no one knows who the hell he is...

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 18:16:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stupak family guilt (0.00 / 0)

There's another theory floating around. Sure, he's wrong on the facts, and wrong on the policy; but nothing anybody says is going to convince him otherwise. It's not politics. It's not rational.

Remember, he's a former police officer and state trooper. He, his wife, and his sons are/were all NRA members. Then, his 17-year-old son committed suicide with Bart's own gun....

That's the sort of thing that sometimes drives folks to greater religious commitment. He's following the dictates of his religious leader, who decreed all abortion and contraception immoral.

By definition, that "universal" (catholic) church believes that every other person in the world should follow their religion. So it's no surprise that he's doing everything in his power to impose his deeply held beliefs on everybody else.

We liberals believe in religious freedom. Allow him freedom to expiate his grief and guilt.

---

by: William Allen Simpson @ Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 17:59:17 PM UTC

Religious tolerance... (0.00 / 0)

My tolerance for people's religion ends when they start expecting me to live according to their convictions.  I've been through an unplanned pregnancy as the father.  At no time did Bart Stupak offer any kind of assistance of money or even babysitting, yet he appears to feel entitled by way of his faith to have made the decision for me.  I put up with that incredibly arrogant expression the first time around. Now, it's time for him to put the nation and his constituents ahead of his own beliefs.

Is he wracked with emotional trauma from a dead son? I have no idea.  I see the end result, and it's other people dying for lack of medical care and medical decisions made not in consultation between doctors and patients but because the person footing the bills has opted to stop paying for stuff.  In the end, his religious convictions, no matter their source, are the problem.  It might be a lot more worthy of compassion than someone who thinks we ought to bomb Iran because he saw the Virgin Mary smeared in the syrup of his morning flapjacks, but the end result is the same.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 19:30:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This (0.00 / 0)

"We liberals believe in religious freedom. Allow him freedom to expiate his grief and guilt."

There are a million ways to do this; to use an elected position that effects the lives of OTHERS to play out and/or through your personal tragedies is not acceptable to say the very least, regardless of how sorry I or you may feel for his loss.

To ask voters to "Allow him freedom to expiate his grief and guilt" through his House seat is not only asking too much, but you should have known as you finished typing the last letter of that how silly that sounded given the work of a congressmemeber.  

If he needs to play out his grief and guilt he can do what everyone else of this stature does and start a foundation or organization to advocate for whatever he wants to.  It is ridiculous to ask us to let him use his job, that effects the lives of millions of Americans, for that purpose.

---

by: MiddleGrandGuy @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 06:57:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]