Bart Stupak to Retire

This is that I believe is going to happen.
1) He retires and tries to disappear into obscurity, probably get involved in the church to try to cleanse his troubled soul for selling his values out.
Or (And pay attention cause this is something that sounds very probable)
2) On his trip on Air Force One, the president of the United States, realizing that to pass this bill, made him 2 offers. One was to retire, disappear for a month or 2, and then when the dust has settled and people are not looking, take a federal government job. (There have been rumors as to that aspect) Or suffer the consequences of voting against the Health Care Bill and take a role of the dice on what would happen or come out. Chicago politics at its best.

Bart Stupak and abortion.

95 percent of all health insurance companies cover abortions. The whole thing did not matter.

Yeah...he's a traitor...a traitor to lie....

Baby killer my ass....I don't see anyone calling the insurance companies baby killers.....how about the CEO's and stockholders of these companies?

Aren't they baby killers as well?

Stupak was perfectly justified in changing his vote to one in favor of health care reform. It was the first reasonable thing he has done for a good while.

The facts are:

1. The health care bill prohibits federal funds for abortions and always has.

2. The "Stupak language" that he was holding out for would in actuality limit women's right to choose far more than the law presently allows. Abortion is still legal in the United States, and the fight over Roe v. Wade should not take place in the health care debate.

3. Stupak is still a serious "right to lifer;" the shouting of "baby killer" is just absurd.

He tried. He got no thanks from either side for his efforts, but his intentions were always clear.

He just decided that the use of his language in the bill and the achievement of further inroads into women's rights did not justify destroying another noble effort, which was health care reform.

No doubt Obama and Stupak reasoned together on this decision. There is nothing illegal or immoral about the President conferring with members of Congress. Every single president has done that numerous times.

It's absurd to allege that Stupak was small enough to be bribed with an airplane ride.

Originally posted by David9176
Baby killer my ass....I don't see anyone calling the insurance companies baby killers.....how about the CEO's and stockholders of these companies?

Aren't they baby killers as well?

It depends on their political party affiliation.

Originally posted by Sestias
There is nothing illegal or immoral about the President conferring with members of Congress. Every single president has done that numerous times.

But those presidents were... um... shall we say... real Americans!

Your post is completely true. There has never been any doubt as to any of the facts here. The Stupak case is a prime example of the GOP twisting and contorting a situation so that even when the facts are clear and agreed upon, the Democrat somehow appears to be the "bad guy".

I'm getting pretty suspicious if I see too many politicians retire or don't want to run for another term. It's like jumping ships before the leak becomes too big. Or trying to distance themselves from the sinking ship, and trying to wash their hands clean, pretending that they don't have anything to do with it..

An Ode to Retiring Politicians:

Let’s start with Kit Bond

Bond is the third Republican Senator to leave the chamber in 2010 -- following Sens. Sam Brownback (Kans.) and Mel Martinez (Fla.) down that path.

voices.washingtonpost.com...

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) will announce later today he will not seek another term.....

hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com...

A few more notable retirements. (19 House Republicans not seeking re election)

John Shadegg - Arizona / John Boozman- Arkansa / George Radanovich - California
Mike Castle - Deleware / Adam Putnam - Florida / Nathan Deal - Georgia / Mark Kirk - Illinois

Source and more here:www.csmonitor.com...

Conservatives Arrogantly Predict Democrats' Demise Despite More Republicans Retiring

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Tom Delay or Trent Lott ring any bells? (Oh yea, Lott was forced to resign amidst scandal.) Pot meet kettle.


[edit on 10-4-2010 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by kinda kurious


Thanks for that info, kurious. After reading Jazzy's post, I wondered how many Republican Congressmen were retiring recently as opposed to Democrats. I figured it was just a matter of not having all the facts. It usually is. I would be curious, also, to see historically how many Congressmen retire between elections. My guess is that it's no different now than any other election. And my guess is also that they're weren't accused of "jumping ship".

I found this from February.

As Retirements Mount, Will Congress be Cleansed?

That means that of the 36 seats in the 100-member Senate to be contested this year, nearly a third already are guaranteed to be held by a newcomer next January even if every other incumbent gets re-elected in November.

In the House, more than 30 lawmakers from both parties are vacating their seats in the 435-member chamber.
...
This year's wave of retirements is large but not extraordinary by historical standards, political historians say.

Sadly:

Another hurdle is that some of the lawmakers retiring are the ones pushing for an end to the partisan rancor, yet they aren't sticking around to change the system.

So, the ones we have left are the hard core partisans... Hopefully a new wave of reform-centric candidates will be voted in. But something tells me that the new group will be even more hard-core partisan and polarizing than ever.

And from January... 2010 Retirements: Good News for Whom?

It's almost certainly true that we're not done hearing about retirements yet, but so far, the Republicans are leading the Democrats in sheer numbers of retirements. Six Republican senators have announced their retirements while four Democratic senators have; fourteen Republican representatives have announced their retirements while ten Democratic representatives have. All things being equal, this makes for a tougher situation for the Republicans. But when you consider that the Democrats already outnumber the Republicans in both houses, it's even tougher still.

And again from February (I can't find anything more recent with updated numbers): 2010 Congressional Retirements

House:
Democratic incumbents (14 incumbents)
Republican incumbents (18 incumbents)

Senate:
Democrats (6)
Republicans (6)

Names are listed at link.

If anyone knows who has announced retirement since then, we could get a current count.

It looks fairly even as regards party affiliation, but it is a lot of retirements. That could be a good thing. Of course, if they leave behind all the die-hards, not much is likely to change, unfortunately.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Again.. if they're too many. Historically, I also have no idea.
However, just I have stated there's also the one who doesn't want another term.
How many of them don't want to run for reelection? Is it normal?

Evan Bayh Not Running For Re-Election

Firstread

Massa's retirement gives Republicans yet another House target. He is 16th Democrat not running for re-election to their House seat this cycle. While more Republicans -- 20 -- won't be running for re-election, more of those Democratic seats are in competitive districts.

It's 16 vs 20.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Nice objectivity BH. Perhaps this is the REAL story and certainly cause for concern in that the ones that are leaving seemed like the moderate voices. Hat tip to Jazzyguy. I really liked Bayh and sad for his departure. (Reason for retirement=partisan politics) Sadly it will probably become more divisive and bitter going forward.

I should have been more objective and less biased in my research but still have much to learn. That is why I'm here, to gain wisdom from the likes of you.

I'm not afraid to admit I have flaws, because I'm unique. Just like everybody else.

Regards


[edit on 10-4-2010 by kinda kurious]

[edit on 10-4-2010 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by Jazzyguy


Yes. Thanks. I hope I didn't come across as confrontational. I just suspect a lot of the "impressions" that are being put out in the "news" these days. Thanks for bringing this particular aspect of the retirements to light. I actually agree with you. This could be a year when a lot of seats are left up for grabs. Should be an interesting time.

I'm keeping a list now. If anyone knows of the other two Republican congressmen retiring, please let me know. Thanks. These are who I have so far:

1. Arkansas John Boozman
2. Arizona John Shadegg
3. California George Radanovich
4. Delaware Michael Castle
5. Florida Adam Putnam
6. Florida Lincoln Diaz-Balart
7. Georgia Nathan Deal
8. Indiana Steve Buyer
9. Illinois Mark Kirk
10. Kansas Jerry Moran
11. Kansas Todd Tiahrt
12. Michigan Peter Hoekstra
13. Michigan Vern Ehlers
14. Missouri Roy Blunt
15. Oklahoma Mary Fallin
16. South Henry E. Brown, Jr
17. South Carolina J. Gresham Barrett
18. Tennessee Zach Wamp

Folks, you can list all the retiring politicians you want, as if it makes some kind of impact on Stupak's decision to retire.

What you are doing is an exercise in futility; you're merely tilting at windmills.

None of those other retiring politicians had an 18 year career dedicated to a particular stance, which undoubtably was a primary reason for his re-elections, that he abandoned for an EO from another lying politician.

None of those other retiring politicians had a vote that meant the difference between passage and failure of the most controversial bill in decades, if not in history.

I doubt if any of those other retirements were spurred by a sudden reversal in attitude from a constituency that feels betrayed.

You're comparing Stupak with....Zach Wamp? Who is Zach Wamp? That's rhetorical, btw..

Originally posted by mishigas
Folks, you can list all the retiring politicians you want, as if it makes some kind of impact on Stupak's decision to retire.

Impact? How could we possibly have an impact on Stupak's retirement? Let me assure you that is not my intention at all and I'm fairly sure jazzy and kurious are smart enough to know they cannot impact Mr. Stupak's retirement. Unless they know something they're not sharing.

What you are doing is an exercise in futility; you're merely tilting at windmills.

Oh, really? I thought we were looking at and discussing an interesting aspect of this story that would show us the bigger picture of what's happening in Congress right now. You know, taking some of the partisan politics OUT of it and looking at the ACTUAL situation.

Did that bother you? I'm sorry.

Do you know what "tilting at windmills" means? Read your post again and see if it isn't YOU who are trying to fight an enemy that doesn't exist.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by mishigas
Folks, you can list all the retiring politicians you want, as if it makes some kind of impact on Stupak's decision to retire.

Poor wording; my fault. What I meant was, you attempted to convey the notion that these types of events, mass retirements if you want to call them that, happen at regularly scheduled intervals, and Stupak just happened to fall in one of those cycles. I think there is much more than that to it.

What you are doing is an exercise in futility; you're merely tilting at windmills.

Oh, really? I thought we were looking at and discussing an interesting aspect of this story that would show us the bigger picture of what's happening in Congress right now. You know, taking some of the partisan politics OUT of it and looking at the ACTUAL situation.

No, you were trying to lump Stupak in with all the rest. And then paint it with the "non-partisan" brush, and hope nobody would notice the sleight of tongue.

The fact is, not too many retirements are announced the week after the election. It's usually the months leading up to the next election when they are announced. Can we think of any reasons why?

The point is, your data doesn't really mean too much at all. But it is *your* data, so who am I to say?

by Benevolent Heretic
Did that bother you? I'm sorry.

Do you know what "tilting at windmills" means? Read your post again and see if it isn't YOU who are trying to fight an enemy that doesn't exist.

I know it when I see it. Let's keep it light and not snidey, 'K?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Or it could be that those retiring have seen the hand writing on the wall and realize that it is best to get out while the getting is good. To retain some bit of shine to just their tarnished reputations as opposed to being tarred with the same brush when the people do finally wake up to the world around them.

Originally posted by mishigas
What I meant was, you attempted to convey the notion that these types of events, mass retirements if you want to call them that, happen at regularly scheduled intervals, and Stupak just happened to fall in one of those cycles. I think there is much more than that to it.

You're right. That is what I'm saying. What is your disagreement with that? What "more" are you talking about?

No, you were trying to lump Stupak in with all the rest. And then paint it with the "non-partisan" brush, and hope nobody would notice the sleight of tongue.

Why shouldn't he be lumped in with the rest? Who had heard of Stupak before his stand on the health care bill? He was a nobody, too.

The fact is, not too many retirements are announced the week after the election. It's usually the months leading up to the next election when they are announced.

Can we think of any reasons why?

I honestly don't know what you're getting at. From one of the sources I quoted above:

The elections are nine months away, and January is typically the most popular month to announce one's retirement from Congress.

The point is, your data doesn't really mean too much at all. But it is *your* data, so who am I to say?

Are you saying I made a mistake in my data? If so, what?

If you could come out and say what's on your mind instead of insinuating and hinting, we might actually be able to have a discussion.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


You're right, BH, I haven't been too clear in stating my arguments. That's what I get for jumping around too many threads and not concentrating on what's in front of me.

Let me try once more to explain my side. If it applies to you, then fine, if not, we can drop it, OK?

SEEMS TO ME.. that Stupak changed his mind because of a conversation he had with Obama. What was said during that conversation, we will never know.

And Stupak only decided to retire after very negative feedback from his constituency.

Now, it's the second part, the decision to retire, that I disagree with you and others. It seems that you are saying that he had intended to retire before he cast his vote. That the feedback or the conversation with Obama had nothing to do with it. To support your position, you are using historical congressional retirement data.

I say there is more than meets the eye here. But that is another one of those things we'll never know. We will just have to wait for Stupak to write his book, which he will inevitably do, to see if he offers any clues.

That's it in a nutshell.

Originally posted by mishigas
SEEMS TO ME.. that Stupak changed his mind because of a conversation he had with Obama. What was said during that conversation, we will never know....And Stupak only decided to retire after very negative feedback from his constituency.

I object, your honor, on the basis of inference and supposition. Poster is stating opinion as fact.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4ea38d1ac1c1.jpg[/atsimg]




[edit on 11-4-2010 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by mishigas
SEEMS TO ME.. that Stupak changed his mind because of a conversation he had with Obama. What was said during that conversation, we will never know.

Of course we'll probably never know everything that was said. What we do know, however, is that Stupak was mistaken in thinking that government funding was going to go for abortion. The Hyde Amendment prevented that. Also, we know that Obama made an agreement with Stupak to write an EO to further assure him (and everyone else) that no government funding from HCR would go toward abortion. This was the only exception Stupak had to HCR. Once that was cleared up, he was free to vote for it, as he has been pushing for health care reform since his campaign.

As far as I'm concerned, whatever else was said is irrelevant, unless there were illegal dealings. And knowing the facts from the paragraph above, there's no suspicion of any illegal dealings. Stupak WANTED to vote for health care reform, there was just one thing in his way and it was cleared up. It makes perfect sense that he'd vote for it without further "dealings" with Obama.

And Stupak only decided to retire after very negative feedback from his constituency.

According to him, he has been considering retiring for several election cycles. Is it true? We don't know. So your statement is opinion.

Stupak's Retirement Statement

It seems that you are saying that he had intended to retire before he cast his vote. That the feedback or the conversation with Obama had nothing to do with it. To support your position, you are using historical congressional retirement data.

I'm not saying that. It's impossible for me to know whether he's being honest or not about intending to retire for some time now. It's also impossible to know whether or not his discussion with Obama had anything to do with his retirement. I didn't present the data to support any position. I presented it to see the bigger picture. That's it. I don't see Stupak as a "special case", as there no evidence presented for me to suspect that he is.

I say there is more than meets the eye here.

You could be right. But all you have to support your position is your suspicions.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by kinda kurious

The congressman rejected the notion that the tough vote, and the threats against him and his family he'd received in its aftermath, had spurred his retirement.

Yeah, I don't know if I believe that. Think about it. If you quitting office because you were threatened, would you announce it as such and let the country know that these slimeballs succeeded in scaring you out of your job and would likely be successful in getting others out by threatening them? I don't think so. No one is EVER going to admit that they're quitting because of death threats.

[edit on 4/9/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

Yay, BH is back - and from the likes of the above post, once again cherry-picking quotes to spin a story.

Either you and kinda kurious believe what stupak says or you don't.

For myself, I place stupak's "explanations" in what I call the "what else would he say?" category since he obviously can't say the truth that he sold his vote for a plane ride. Actually, the same category I use for BH and sometimes KK whenever they come running to the rescue of the latest liberal finding themselves in trouble.

[edit on 4/11/2010 by centurion1211]