By Tom Blumer (Bio | Archive)
Wed, 03/31/2010 - 01:27 ET
StupakThis item may not surprise those of us who have watched politicians take the safe way out at any opportunity, but it will give any voters who come across it reason to doubt any Democratic congressman who says that he or she voted no on principle against Obamacare on Sunday, March 21.
This explains why it hasn't been covered much -- and maybe not at all -- in any establishment media outlet.
On March 26, the Catholic News Agency had an exclusive interview with Michigan congressman Bart Stupak. Wait until you see some of the things he admitted to CNA (bolds are mine):
The Michigan Democrat explained that by opting for the executive order, pro-life Democrats believe they ensured the legislation was “somewhat restrictive” towards abortion funding.
“Speakers never bring a bill to the floor, unless they have the votes. And they always have few in reserve,” Stupak revealed, describing this as a “common tactic” that was used in the defeat of the Dornan Amendment in a funding bill earlier this year.
“The Speaker always carries a number of votes in her pocket,” he said, meaning that some members who voted ‘no’ would have voted ‘yes’ if needed.
“I had a number of members who thanked us after because they could vote no.”
Rep. Stupak said he thought the votes available for Sunday’s vote totaled 222.
Well, okay Bart, who were these Dems who didn't have the courage to vote their convictions, and instead wish to go back to their constituents and claim they didn't support the ObamaCare monstrosity? (crickets ...)
Better yet, pal, don't tell us. It would be much more convenient for November voters to presumptively assume that their no-voting Democratic congressman really was a "yes" until Bart bailed them out. That works for me, and it would work for many other like-minded Americans -- which is why the press will more than likely pretend that the CNA-Stupak interview doesn't exist.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Oh I see campaign ads in
Wed, 03/31/2010 - 02:31 ET by DavartOh I see campaign ads in the near future on the Democrat NO Votes ... thanks Bart! We always knew this but its better to hear it from the horses ass.
http://www.angrywhiteguy.com/
The Angry White Guy Blog
→ Stupak
Wed, 03/31/2010 - 02:52 ET by Cool Arrow “I had a number of members who thanked us after because they could
vote no.”
In other words, by selling his own soul, he prevented others from admitting they had already sold theirs?
OR
"I return from Bad Godesburg with the message, PEACE IN OUR TIME"
That crocodile done chewed up ol' Stupak and puked him right out.
It confirms what we already know.
Wed, 03/31/2010 - 03:05 ET by Mikey1015Democrats are deceptive and disgraceful. Traitors to the very principles our country was founded upon. Dirtbags...
I'm sorry I ruined your New Years Eve party, Lt. Dan. She tasted like cigarettes.
Votes In her pocket....
Wed, 03/31/2010 - 03:54 ET by JPPYet another reason to rid ourselves of professional politicians.
Real term limits and a return to a citizens legislature is the only way to preserve our nation. Being a professional politician should be a felony.
Magic mushrooms
Wed, 03/31/2010 - 03:56 ET by Vivaldi5We can put this admission next to that of Rep. Jim Cooper from Feb. 2009, where the Tennessee Democrat discussed the stimulus package in a radio interview:
"...'Now, I got in terrible trouble with our leadership because they don’t care what’s in the bill, they just want it passed and they want it to be unanimous. They don’t mind the partisan fighting cause that’s what they are used to. In fact, they’re really good at it. And they’re a little bit worried about what a post-partisan future might look like.' He implied that Members of Congress don't 'read the bills and figure out whether they're any good or not. We’re just told how to vote. We’re treated like mushrooms most of the time.'"
Personally, I think in Stupak's case Pelosi was bluffing about having enough votes in her pocket and Stupak was too dumb to see through that. But she got boxed into a corner by saying she wouldn't negotiate with Bart's block of reps until Obama promised his magical executive order and Stupak fell for that, breaking the impasse. Still, what Stupak said here does reinforce what we knew about Nancy and her 'mushroom farm.'
Stupak is only confirming
Wed, 03/31/2010 - 02:26 ET by metaphorsbwithuStupak is only confirming what we already know. The Dems can pass anything they want, with whatever margin they wish, when they have a majority.
The more controversial the vote, the more of those "vulnerable" representatives are allowed to vote against the Party line to (they hope) get re-elected.
Our Senator Landrieu is good for that, voting against the Democrat Party when she knows a bill is unpopular, but only to get re-elected and only when it doesn't prevent a bill from passing.
Same with Congressman Melancon. Unfortunately, Landrieu isn't up for re-election until 2014. Melancon is leaving the House and running against Vitter for the Senate but his goose is cooked.
metaphorsbwithu