What Stupak sold out for

[chaz345]

Firstly, the bill provides no funding for abortion. It even says that in the funding. So Stupak didn't "sell out" for anything.

Secondly, Republicans were legally and duly outvoted in the House. The fact that they are unhappy with that result doesn't change the legality of the result.
Ringo

Somehow I strongly suspect that if it were the Repubs who had passed something with the same tactics that the Dems used on this, that you would be not a focused on the legally and duly part.

 

[chaz345]

As many as the GOP wanted?

He wasn't buying GOP votes.

 

[Zoooma]

No, not money, but the love of money.

True. So true. Money does great things in the world.
It's greedy people who do bad things with it.

Isn't it a Congressman's job to benefit his constituents?

If his constituents were allowed to vote and they'd vote overwhelmingly NO, then is it the Congressman's job to serve the smaller number of his constituents who say yes?

Obviously the answer to this is: you BETTER serve a MAJORITY of your constituents or you're gonna be voted out of office. In Stupak's case, he's taking the cowardly way out by retiring. That way he won't be shamed out of office for not serving a majority of his constituents.

 

[DaisyDay]

If his constituents were allowed to vote and they'd vote overwhelmingly NO, then is it the Congressman's job to serve the smaller number of his constituents who say yes?

If he truly believes it will benefit the majority, then yes, but you don't know that they would vote overwhelmingly no.

Obviously the answer to this is: you BETTER serve a MAJORITY of your constituents or you're gonna be voted out of office. In Stupak's case, he's taking the cowardly way out by retiring. That way he won't be shamed out of office for not serving a majority of his constituents.

You call him a coward because you know that that is why he is retiring after 18 years? Despite what he himself says.

Three little-known hopefuls are seeking the GOP nomination, and Stupak faced a primary challenge from a Democrat who is pro-choice on abortion.
link

And if the pro-choicer wins?

 

[Zoooma]

If his constituents were allowed to vote and they'd vote overwhelmingly NO, then is it the Congressman's job to serve the smaller number of his constituents who say yes?

If he truly believes it will benefit the majority, then yes, but you don't know that they would vote overwhelmingly no.

Despite what the polls said then, and despite what they still say now, you give the Congressman the benefit of the doubt? All across America, members of Congress voted for their party, not for what a majority of their constituents wanted. They have every right to do that. But should they? Should they appear as if we the people simply do not matter? We're supposed to have a voice. Without a voice, without being truly represented, we're reduced to slaves.

In Stupak's case, he's taking the cowardly way out by retiring. That way he won't be shamed out of office for not serving a majority of his constituents.

You call him a coward because you know that that is why he is retiring after 18 years? Despite what he himself says.

He's a politician who has served proudly. If he ran again and was voted out after 18 years, what an embarrassment that would be. He knows this. We all have pride and it sucks when that's stepped on. Because of the direction he's helped take America, because he's acted against the wishes of a majority of his constituents, he knows he cannot win in November; his pride would stepped on in a hurtful way. Remember -- he's a politician. Why would he say he's retiring to not be embarrassed? He's trying to salvage his dignity. Don't go giving politicians the benefit of the doubt. They don't deserve it.

 

[Texas Lynn]

No, not money, but the love of money.

Isn't it a Congressman's job to benefit his constituents?

A Congressman or -woman who can't bring home the bacon isn't worth having.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Somehow I strongly suspect that if it were the Repubs who had passed something with the same tactics that the Dems used on this, that you would be not a focused on the legally and duly part.

The Republicans used the reconciliation process umpteen times under Bush Jr. but the corporate media didn't see fit to dissect it like they did on HCR.

 

[Texas Lynn]

If his constituents were allowed to vote and they'd vote overwhelmingly NO, then is it the Congressman's job to serve the smaller number of his constituents who say yes?

Obviously the answer to this is: you BETTER serve a MAJORITY of your constituents or you're gonna be voted out of office. In Stupak's case, he's taking the cowardly way out by retiring. That way he won't be shamed out of office for not serving a majority of his constituents.

Not necessarily. Dr. Lyman Hall, a delegate to the Second Continental Congress from Georgia, decided to vote for American Independence even though Georgians were against it on the basis of this quote from Edmund Burke: "A representative owes the People not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion."

 

[Texas Lynn]

All across America, members of Congress voted for their party, not for what a majority of their constituents wanted. They have every right to do that. But should they?

Polls consistently showed the majority supported the elements of HCR even though they (according to certain polls) may have opposed the bill on the basis of what Faux News and the like falsely told them was in it.

Should they appear as if we the people simply do not matter? We're supposed to have a voice. Without a voice, without being truly represented, we're reduced to slaves.

If you don't like a Congressman's or -woman's voting reconrd, then vote against them, but don't whine if your side loses.

He's a politician who has served proudly. If he ran again and was voted out after 18 years, what an embarrassment that would be. He knows this. We all have pride and it sucks when that's stepped on. Because of the direction he's helped take America, because he's acted against the wishes of a majority of his constituents, he knows he cannot win in November; his pride would stepped on in a hurtful way. Remember -- he's a politician. Why would he say he's retiring to not be embarrassed? He's trying to salvage his dignity. Don't go giving politicians the benefit of the doubt. They don't deserve it.

I don't think you know Northwest Michigan like you think you do. Stupak is openly socialist and was consistently populist economically and popular. The Upper Penninsula especially has a strong lefty tradition brought over by Finnish and Czech mineworkers. Stupak was a cop in Escanaba who got his law degree and was then elected to Congress. I disagree with Stupak on abortion but he is Catholic and went to Catholic schools and it's what he believes. If he votes right on 96% of the stuff and wrong on that I can live with it.

Besides, now he'll get congressional retirement so it's not like he's suffering. And the pro-choice challenger now becomes the front runner for his seat! Not too shabby.