by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
Amid the recriminations it's easy to overlook what Mr. Stupak had cobbled together. His amendment restricting federal funding for abortions, passed in November, marked the only bipartisan vote in this whole health-care mess. For the first time since Roe v. Wade, pro-life Democrats had seized the legislative initiative in the teeth of their leadership's opposition - and brought the party of abortion to heel....
Now Mr. Stupak has thrown it away. By caving at the last hour, he discredited all who stood with him. (What does it say about OH's Marcy Kaptur and PA's Chris Carney that they had already agreed to vote yes even before the fig leaf of the executive order had come through?) In addition to undermining an encouraging partnership with pro-lifers across the congressional aisle, Mr. Stupak signaled that, in the end, you can't count on pro-life Democrats....
In signing on to this sham order, the Stupak people signed their death warrant as a force within their party. In an America where a majority now describe themselves as pro-life, they have put legislative accommodations on abortion further out of reach. At least in the near future, they have ensured the Democrats will become even more uniformly pro-choice, and our national debate more polarized.
And that's a tragedy for our politics as well as for our principles.
Yes, and Mr. Moore loves to take the name of the Lord in vain.Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at March 23, 2010 10:57 AM
"...the Stupak people signed their death warrant as a force within their party..."
Oh so true...and the fact that "pro-Life Democrats" will now and forever be a Myth once more. No pro-lifer will trust these liberal jellfish again.Posted by: RSD at March 23, 2010 10:58 AM
I really don't want to hang all our hopes on the GOP, though. These are the people who will try to halt enlarging the government when they're not in power, but sign stuff like the Patriot Act when they are.
Obviously, counting on the pro-life Democrats is out. Maybe I'll go see what the Constitution party is up to. I hear they're pretty solidly pro-life...Posted by: Keli Hu at March 23, 2010 11:03 AM
The Constitution Party? Please be serious.
The Constitution Party in Oregon helped take down Republican Senator Gordon Smith last year. He was not as good as we would like, but he was about the best you could elect in Oregon. The CP candidate got only 5% (and they will never be able to win), but it was enough to defeat Smith.
The Constitution Party in Minnesota helped take down Republican Senator Norm Coleman last year (with some help from the Libertarian Party). Those two parties' candidates got 25,000 votes. Coleman "lost" (I believe the election was stolen by the Democratic Party) by about 700 "votes".
These two victories for the Democrats pushed them from 58 seats to 60 seats in the Senate. Without these two gifts, they could never have pushed through this unconstitutional socialized medicine scam.
So these two minor parties, especially the Constitution Party, have done devastating damage to our country and yet probably lack the strategic understanding to realize this. So the pro-life, pro-freedom Constitution Party has helped to devastate both life and freedom.
It is in part because of their well-meaning but misguided efforts that we will likely have to endure socialized medicine for the rest of our lives, along with an expansion of the horror of subsidized child killing.Posted by: Joe at March 23, 2010 11:52 AM
Right, because electing Republicans has worked out so well in the past...Posted by: Keli Hu at March 23, 2010 12:06 PM
Electing Republicans has NOT worked out well in the past. Many reasons for this, one being that not enough Republicans were elected. We need not a Republican majority in both houses of Congress but a Republican supermajority and therefore a conservative pro-life majority. We have not had this unfortunately.
Even if the Republicans did not do nearly enough to stop the killing of unborn children and cut government power, how is it better to defeat them and bring in much worse people? I would think the idea would be to defeat them in primaries and bring in much better people.
The Republicans acted as a firewall to prevent the Democratic Party from making things much worse, which they have just done. It was devastating for anyone on our side to do anything to help bring in even two more Democratic politicians committed to socializing medicine and killing our children. It was absolutely insane to help bring in the two strategically critical extra seats in the Senate, the ones that get them to 60, the ones that allow them to end a filibuster and the ones that allow them to do so much damage to the causes that we hold dear.Posted by: Joe at March 23, 2010 12:33 PM
Joe: You make perfect sense. Here is the thing on political candidates: there is not a single one of them that is perfect. Given that reality, and given the fact that we are essentially a two party system, in 99.9 percent of the political races in our country it comes down to electing either a Republican or a Democrat. The Democrats are now exposed as unyielding pro-aborts. Case closed.
We often hear that the Repubs failed to this, or should of/could of done that... Well it doesn't always work that way. First, there is no comparing the Repubs under Bush with the supermajority that the Dems enjoyed in getting this health disaster through the Senate. Furthermore, generally speaking when the Republicans hold power there is a different tone in Washington--look at their accceptance of Judge Breyer with relative subdued opposition compared with how brutal and shameful the Dems were during the Roberts and Alito hearings. Second, the influential forces of the MSM and academia are both in the Dem's camp because they are fellow travelers in every respect. As a write this AOL has a story about that paragon of moderation and civility--Rosie O'Donnell--possibly taking Oprah's slot. Naturally, they all oppose any effort that speaks to the values of the center-right majority in our country. So Republicans, and in particular conservative Republicans are usually hamstrung with a press that rails against conservative principles 24/7. And finally, Republicans often do not hold together because we have the likes of people like Collins, Snowe (and we used to have Specter) and others who are a disaster. But this being said having them on the Republican roster still beats having a Democrat there for a million and one reasons, not the least of which is if having them means we regain control of the Senate we can set the legislative agenda. But unquestionably it would be better for Maine to give us some solid conservative senators.Posted by: Jerry at March 23, 2010 11:46 PM
There was no bipartisan support for the Stupak amendment. It was a con! Even the guy who wrote it voted against it when it mattered.Posted by: truthseeker at March 24, 2010 1:55 AM
While the following quote from Michael Moore is not from the above-mentioned article in the HuffPo, it is from an article by Moore a few days earlier and it would be nice to put this misinformation to rest once and for all.
"A group representing most of America's 59,000 Catholic nuns has written to Congress and said that Obama's health care plan should be passed." (Michael Moore)
The number of nuns was 59, NOT 59 thousand!!
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The letter signed by 59 Catholic nuns sent to members of Congress yesterday endorsing the pro-abortion Senate health care bill has been dismissed by several pro-life advocates and organizations saying it doesn't represent an authentic Catholic or pro-life position.Posted by: Janet at March 24, 2010 2:54 PM
More on the subject of the nuns supporting the healthcare bill:
dated Friday, March 19, 2010
USCCB Hits Back: Pro-ObamaCare Nuns 'Grossly Overstated' Significance
Bishops correct CHA president's attack on Cardinal George
I truly do not trust any of them. Deomcrats even less but still the GOP has let us down too.Posted by: why does abortion exist at March 25, 2010 6:05 PM