Kind of an odd strategy for anti-abortionists to go after a fellow anti-abortionist for taking a principled stand against abortion. But when it comes to the Tea Baggers – failure is the new success. Perhaps 2 wrongs do make a right.
1
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Again Perkel does a drive-by. There’s no linked story. No evidence. Nothing. Just a headline, a photo and three sentences, all just his own gratuitous assertions.
Go back to your own blog that nobody reads, Marc Perkel.
It’s called an original article. Someone has to write stuff that others point to.
Politics is a strange game isn’t it. But the fact is, people often hold the people that are supposed to “agree” with them, and represent their position best, the most accountable.
However, in the case of Stupak, it seems he is resigning because he voted for a very unpopular bit of legislation, and faces uncertain re-election because of this, rather than because he is anti-abortion.
Obama wants him to stay, that alone means he’s no good.
That’s show biz. Maybe he can now team up with Palin and sell a muck nugget.
I wonder what Kabuki performer will replace him now.
You know why live lobsters have their claws tied in a tank? …. Not so easy to keep the Tea Baggers from similar behavior.
May be there is a honeypot position waiting for him in the Obama Admin.
#7, not likely. Without his antics HCR would have passed more quickly. He wasn’t ever going to be the guy to stop the bill, but the conservative numbnuts can’t figure that out so they blame him for all of HCR.
He lost the biggest gambit of his career, and now nobody likes him. Boo hoo.
Perkel should try doing some research first. If he bothered to investigate, he would find out that the Pro-Abortionists are just as pissed off at Stupak and the Anti-abortionists.
I am glad this guy is gone because he is a stooge for the UAW. I couldn’t care less about the HCR bill. My guess is they will just elect another democrat that is a union stooge.
Come on John, your comments sucked. You know the real story and it’s not as lame as you make it out to be.
This supposed anti-abortion support sold his soul to Nancy Pelosi and now the electorate have spoken loud and vehemently that they will not keep him in office. You can blame the Tea Baggers if you like, but they are a very small portion of the electorate and if you think they could bring down Stupak, then you’re not paying attention.
There is a silent majority who are tired of their voices not being heard.
[John didn’t post this. – ed.]
If he was truly anti-abortion, he would not have taken an executive order over changing the language in the bill to be more clear on the matter.
Any future president can rescind the Obama executive order.
So why this is even “newsworthy” is just a partisan rant over the guy stepping down because he knows his constituents will not re-elect him.
The Democrats don’t want to lose control of Congress so they’re having those who have upset their own constituents to step down so someone else with plausible deniability can fill their shoes in the hopes of maintaining Democrat control after 2010.
There is a silent majority who are tired of their voices not being heard.
Funny, that group never shows up in any polls. There’s a noisy minority, we know all about them, however. In any case keep this in mind: enacting laws because you won electoral majorities is called democracy.
13, Olo Baggins,
Let’s not get carried away just yet. Many states are challenging this over its Constitutionality. Telling people they must have this coverage and then say since everyone is buying it we must now therefore regulate it is an abuse of the Commerce clause.
One thing to glean from this is that Democrats ran on a platform of ending the Iraq war back in 2006 when they took control of Congress. All they had to do when they assumed office over 3 years ago was to kill the funding. They have not yet done that.
In 2010, when Republicans run on a platform to stop runaway government spending, they will likely regain control of the Congress. But unlike the silly game the Democrats played by demanding Bush sign a bill to end the war (when Congress could easily do that on their own), the Republicans will likely kill funding the Health Care bill rather than pass a new one which would obviously get vetoed by Obama.
Now that’s what you call a democracy. BTW, Bush Jr. won the Presidential election in 2000 electorally. But for some reason liberals didn’t feel that they lost democratically.
Guyver…the states have an opt-out.
R’s will have trouble with the spending thing because they presided over a massive increase in spending, a massive handout to the rich which is driving the deficit to this day, and virtually all of them voted for the bank bailouts. Just sayin’.
The R’s will kill health care just like they’re going to kill Santa Claus this year. “Do you want to see little Susie die because she can’t get treatment for her nasty disease?”
Seriously, I don’t think anti-HCR is going to gain traction. The big problem is the tea party splitting up votes and Dems walking away with seats as the R’s fight them. That was Stupak’s problem–in reverse. He was either going to lose to a teabagger or another Dem.
That is one stupid looking, ugly moron with a bad haircut. He should have been aborted.
He tried gaming the voters on both sides of the isle. promoting his stand against the bill as some savior to society to stand up for what was right. But really, in the end, he was just waiting for a backroom deal with the devil (in this case Obama: Lord of the Universe, savior to all mankind) he kissed his ring and fell on his sword for the Democrat party. I say fire everyone in D.C., they’re all worthless.
If I had diplomatic immunity, I KNOW a few members in D.C. I’d have a smoke with.
He voted for the health care bill. That is why he knows he can’t get re-elected. That is obvious to anyone who has an IQ above that of a leaf.
#18 Are you offended that you no longer have the right to be rejected by your insurance company for pre-existing conditions? Offended that you no longer have the right to be dropped by your health insurance company if you actually need medical care?
Just the first step on the way to TOTALITARIANISM!
🙂
If the health care bill only did those two things, then there would be no one complaining about it. The health care bill does much more than that.
#18 said, “Are you offended that you no longer have the right to be rejected by your insurance company for pre-existing conditions? Offended that you no longer have the right to be dropped by your health insurance company if you actually need medical care?”
Bart Stupak: Retirement Decision Not Politically Motivated – Political Hotsheet – CBS News http://bit.ly/bA1ACa
#9 “…Pro-Abortionists are just as pissed off at Stupak and the Anti-abortionists.”
No one that I have ever heard about is Pro-Abortion. The correct term would have to be Pro-Choice.
#22 ramuno said, “No one that I have ever heard about is Pro-Abortion.”
Not true. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Euthanasia: “According to the church’s website, the one commandment is “Thou shalt not procreate”. The CoE further asserts four principal pillars: suicide, abortion, cannibalism (“strictly limited to consumption of the already dead”), and sodomy (“any sexual act not intended for procreation”).”
ramuno…didn’t you read the bill? on page 4,274 it says: “…abortions are mandatory for every female over age 17, they will be rammed down their throats.”
Don’t know about you, but I don’t want anything rammed down my throat. Frankly, I think the guys who say that most often think otherwise. 😉 Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
#22. I am afraid I must disagree with your assessment. Their stated value of “pro-choice” is only valid so long as the woman chooses abortion. I can find no evidence that those who advocate “choice” are anything other than pro-abortion. If they were really “pro-choice,” they would have no objection to women being advised that the “tissue” being removed has a heartbeat.
#25 One would have thought that an Eagle Scout could develop better critical thinking skills than you have.
Pro-choice means that women can choose to have an abortion or (and here’s the part that escapes you) choose not to have an abortion.
Glad to help.
#25 What evidence are you looking for? I advocate choice but am not pro-abortion. Who in their right mind is pro-abortion? That’s a label you ding bats agreed to use for effect. I just roll my eyes.
#26 LOL. Help them eagle scouts.
beaglescout: And here I was thinking “choice” meant one had options from which to choose.
Phydeau…becoming an Eagle Scout ain’t what it used to be. The percentage of Scouts who achieve it has doubled while the number of total Scouts has fallen by more than half.
Marc Perkel said,
It’s called an original article. Someone has to write stuff that others point to.
Three sentences is an article? Wow that’s pretty impressive. I guess this is an article too then…
Not Perkel again! John – please revoke his posting authority from your blog.
Thanks.