Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Stupak Doesn't Plan On Folding, A Lesson In Appeasement

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 04:29 PM
Original message
Stupak Doesn't Plan On Folding, A Lesson In Appeasement
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/11/12/stupak-doesnt-plan-on-folding-a-lesson-in-appeasement
Stupak Doesn’t Plan On Folding, A Lesson In Appeasement

By: Jon Walker Thursday November 12, 2009 12:25 pm  
Bart Stupak successfully held his ground. Nancy Pelosi and President Obama agreed to give into his demands because they saw it as the path of least resistance. There were no pro-choice Democrats willing to go to the mat for their convictions. This why the Stupak amendment made it into the House bill, and why it could likely make it into the final bill. Stupak has no intentions on giving in.

The House passed the overall health care bill, which included Stupak’s amendment. Stupak’s success is expected to embolden abortion opponents in the Senate, where the action has moved.

“We are sticking to our principles,” said Stupak, a 57-year-old Catholic first elected in 1992 who chairs the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on oversight and investigations.

“We are in contact with senators to make sure our language holds. The other side is playing with fire,” added Stupak.

Stupak smells weakness from the left, so he is planning to go for the kill. In an interview he said he will no longer accept a compromise that he was prepared to agree to only a week ago.

Would you be open to considering that ‘Hyde-lite’ language as part of the final package?

No. Why would I compromise now? I won the issue.

Why should Stupak even think about compromising? Obama and Pelosi bowed to the wishes of Stupak before, and there is no reason to believe they will not do so again. Whenever faced with demands from conservative members, the only tool in the administration’s tool box seems to be appeasement. The president does not ever try to strong arm them, and as a result they have only gotten bolder and more outrageous in their demands. If you give a blue dog a treat every time he pisses on your carpet, don’t be surprised when your whole house starts reeking of urine.

MORE

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yup. Nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes. And dead armadilloes.
As Jim Hightower correctly noted...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
2. nobody fears dems leadership in congress or the white house nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. That is because there is no Democratic leadership in congress or the white house
There are those persons holding leadership positions but a pitiful lack of leadership.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
4. There is no bill now
Edited on Thu Nov-12-09 05:55 PM by quaker bill
or there is no bill later. I was hearing that folks around here want the bill killed anyway, particularly if it contains the Stupak language. So it is now looking like with the Stupak language you get no bill, and without it, you get no bill. It is a perfect lose - lose situation (for those who want the bill defeated anyway). So, what is the problem here?

Pro-lifers do not compromise, why would one expect Stupak to be any different?

Getting a bill passed is not appeasement, it is politics. The blue dogs are largely there as replacement for the Republicans that used to hold these seats. Had we run progressives instead, there is every reason to believe the seats would be now filled by Republicans who would simply have been a more reliable "no" vote. End result, no bill.

There were numerous and nearly uncountable ways over the last three years that the Democratic Party could have gotten to a reliable "no" vote on healthcare reform. That we got to a tenative "yes" vote on an admittedly well less than perfect bill is nothing short of a miracle.

Sorry folks, but large parts of "fly over" country just aren't all that progressive, and unfortunately due to the Constitution, they get seats in the House and Senate as well. Either we figure out how to live with that, or we get to walk about disappointed, because it is not about to change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. You say all of this as if we should settle for anti-choice
stuff in order to "win."

Do you really think we should just give in and allow anti-choice legislation just because you feel so much of the country is so conservative?

A whole lot of women really would not appreciate that answer. Neither would a lot of men.

I have no intention of accepting any anti-choice legislation, ever, under any circumstances. That is a poison pill I am not willing to swallow. Civil rights for women are not something I am willing to throw away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue State Blues Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
6. Best. Blue Dog. Line. Ever.
"If you give a blue dog a treat every time he pisses on your carpet, don’t be surprised when your whole house starts reeking of urine."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC