Sunday, March 21, 2010

Lessons of the day

It's pretty simple, really:

  • There is no such thing as a "pro-life" Democrat. In the end, Bart Stupak sold out every principle he has ever publicly espoused on this issue, for a promise from a man whose word is no good. Bart Stupak might be bunking with Doug Kmiec in Malta come January.
  • When you elect the Party of Government, don't be surprised if they try to extend their governing to every aspect of your life.
  • Because of the previous mistakes that the Party of Government has committed (Social Security, Medicare) and the complicating mistakes that the Stupid Party has made (extending the prescription drug benefit and committing us to trillions of unfunded liabilities), we are facing a financial catastrophe in the next 10-20 years. The Party of Government has decided to face that issue by doubling down.
  • Elections have consequences. Sometimes, very, very bad consequences.

But enough of that. Time to get to work. We have a Republic to save.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Stupak did get money for three airports in his district on Friday. He sold his soul on Sunday, assumming he ever had one in the first place.

They say in physics that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The Party in power has made their action. Now it's time for the public's reaction. It's starts Monday morning with the Stock Market....

Mr. D said...

Now it's time for the public's reaction. It's starts Monday morning with the Stock Market....

Yep. We'll be learning a lot of lessons soon.

Gino said...

as a catholic, and a prolifer predating even my catholicism, i was impressed with stupak's principle stand.

i was wrong.
he was gaming the process for face time and effective pr.

i now find his existence personally insulting.

i am now hoping that every one of these fellow churchmen of mine recieve The Letter from their bishop.

it is time for bishops to act like bishops. pray that they do.

my name is Amanda said...

Where does it say in the bill that abortions will be paid for by taxpayer money?

W.B. Picklesworth said...

Amanda, are you expecting a citation or are you just being deliberately obtuse?

Douglas said...

Lesson #5: The Party of Government has adopted a legislative strategy that goes beyond individual elections, with certain legislators sacrificing their seats for a purportedly permanent expansion of Government.

Lesson #6 (or possibly 5b): Two can play at that game.

Mr. D said...

Amanda,

I'll get you the specific language later, but you have to realize that the entire reason Bart Stupak was holding things up (until he got bought off) was because there is language in the Senate bill that specifically allows federal money for abortions. It's telling that a pro-life organization that was going to give Stupak a "Defender of Life" award this week is now rescinding the award and condemning him in strong terms.

Douglas, exactly. Madame Pelosi has given us a roadmap for the raw exercise of political power. She and her party may someday be on the business end as well.

my name is Amanda said...

I can see how WBP might think I am being obtuse, because I do believe that the word "abortion" was only being used to deny contraception to poor people, and that there is actually no federal money at all going to abortions. BUT I was also allowing anyone interested to tell me how despite this fact, they are saying the bill will fund abortions. I honestly don't get how something that is clearly missing can be so widely proclaimed (by Conservatives) to be present.

Anonymous said...

Amanda, Let's see what happens with "Part II" reconcilliations before we judge the abortion issue. Also, do we know if the bill requires insurance companies which are not currently obligated to fund abortions to pay for them? The truth is very few people know.

This bill is going to be a lot like limburger cheese. The longer that it's out in the open and exposed to oxygen, the more it will stink.

my name is Amanda said...

I keep coming back here to see if someone could answer my question. No luck, huh?

Mr. D said...

I'm sorry, Amanda. I forgot about your question. I'll try to research it tomorrow. From what I understand, the language refers to grants to clinics that perform abortions that are unrestricted, but I'll try to get the relevant cite.

Mr. D said...

Amanda,

I've read varying reports on your question. Here's what I can gather: while specific funding for abortion is not allowed, the feds do provide subsidies that, while supposedly segregated, could indeed be used to pay for abortions. In addition, while the money clinics are receiving can't be specifically used for abortions, the money can go to clinics that perform abortions and by subsidizing their operations, the feds are enabling the clinics to spend outside money on abortions that would otherwise go toward covering operating expenses.

It's indirect, but it enables abortion. The Hyde language is not part of the Senate bill and there is no guarantee that it will be part of the reconciliation. And Obama's executive order is meaningless.

We'll learn a lot more about what's actually buried in the bill as more people have a chance to read the actual text. I'll probably revisit the issue later on, but there are other issues that need to be discussed, such as the matter I discussed in this evening's post.

Gino said...

i've heard that obama failed to issue the promised executive order, as well.

is that true?

Mr. D said...

i've heard that obama failed to issue the promised executive order, as well.

is that true?


It was not issued on Tuesday; word I've heard is that it is supposed to be issued today. We'll watch and see. In some respects, I wish he'd blow Stupak off at this point, because it would further drive the point home.