Politicians Sure Hate Taking Stands

March 18th, 2010 at 8:54 am David Frum | 43 Comments |

| Print
Latest data point: Bart Stupak’s complaint’s in today’s Politico. Here is a chance for the anti-abortion politician to stand up and fight for his declared beliefs, possibly altering the course of history. In many times and places, men have braved death in situations like these. In the United States in 2010, happily nobody suffers such a fate – but your office may have to take a lot of phone calls at odd hours of the day. About which Stupak says, “It’s been a living hell.”

The ideal outcome, Stupak said, might be for the House Democratic leadership to get the votes they need without him and for the bill to pass.

“You know, maybe for me that’s the best: I stay true to my principles and beliefs,” he said, and “vote no on this bill and then it passes anyways. Maybe for me is the best thing to do.”

Profile in courage! And one more reminder that the stiff upper lip is not an American quality….

Recent Posts by David Frum



43 Comments so far ↓

  • balconesfault

    Well, Stupak’s real problem is that his ego has painted him into a corner.

    I’m pretty sure that it’s not up to our elected officials to stand as an arbiter between the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Catholic Health Association, and the Catholic Leadership Conference of Women Religious, but that seems to be where he’s placed himself.

  • Independent

    B’fault is probably one of those harassing callers spinning nonsense into the earpiece of Mrs Stupak’s home phone that Bart was speaking about in the Politico article.

    His stand isn’t informed by the Catholic Conference. In fact, the Catholic Hospital Assn and Catholic Hospital Executives Assn supports the health care bill, as does another famous anti-abortion Congressman and Catholic, Dale Kildee of Flint.

    He’s doing what he’s supposed to do –representing his district. As Bart Stupak said in the article: “Beyond the abortion issue itself, Stupak said he feels conflicted because he has always supported healthcare reform.” “Stupak has never signed up for federal health benefits because he promised voters in 1992 that he wouldn’t until universal healthcare was enacted. He also said was denied coverage for a pre-existing injury when he got his insurance from the Michigan Legislature: “I can identify with those people who have been before my committee.” But in the end, the abortion issue has trumped other concerns. “It’s a belief for me, so it’s easier to do. And it’s a belief for my district, so I guess it’s easier to do,” he said.”

    Sounds pretty principled to me. And, if you know the UP of Michigan, a politically prudent thing to do –infanticide isn’t tolerated by the good people of the UP.

  • Independent

    B’fault claims: “Stupak’s real problem is that his ego has painted him into a corner.”

    Obviously, you’ve never met Bart Stupak nor know much about him. He’s one of the most humble, servant minded men I’ve ever met and had the pleasure to work with in the Michigan Congressional delegation. Both he and Dale Kildee are two of the rarest birds in the Congress –not ego-driven, service driven, honorable men.

    You’re just shooting blanks from your hip, B’fault. Like usual.

    By the way, that sort of kills your nonsensical claim in other threads about the D and R issue, no? 30 seconds for you to reload some blank bullets in those hip holstered revolvers, B’Fault.

  • balconesfault

    By the way, that sort of kills your nonsensical claim in other threads about the D and R issue, no?

    I don’t know. Can you tell me any Republican Congressmen whom you value Bart Stupak over?

    So tell me – do you believe that the Catholic nuns favor “infanticide”? Or are they correct in claiming that Stupak’s grandstanding over differences between the Senate and House bill represents at best flawed logic?

  • Independent

    Well, I guess that’s a record for reloading blanks and drawing your revolver for another round, B’fault. Ron Paul would be at the top of the list to fit your silly category; many others. You’re still wrong. Time to apologize? I’m betting it isn’t even possible for you.

    As for the Catholic nuns –as a Roman Catholic, taught by scores of nuns and personally knowing hundreds of nuns in my lifetime now– I can tell you that nuns are some of the most naively trusting people who see the world in the simplest of childlike terms… social justice animates their lives more than anything else. I’ve met many nuns who have fought for abortion rights, the release of all felons from prison, the abatement of death sentences for heinous criminals, euthanasia ala Jack Kevorkian, the defense of communist and socialist tyrants in 3rd world countries, gay marriage rights, etc.

    Nuns who are administrators –like Sister Carol of the CHA– are usually administrators because their order controls the hospital board… they rise up through the ranks of the order to head a hospital, not by merit or skill set.

    By the way, nuns also bristle at their local bishops telling them what to do… most nuns think of themselves as members of a national or international order first, not beholden to the diocesean authority of a bishop or collection of bishops. The nuns I’ve known who are heads of their orders or a chief administrator of hospital think of themselves the equal of bishop and not subject to that instruction.

    The truth is that some nuns, by endorsing the Obama sCare program, are leaving behind the important concerns of legal immigrant families in this country who should be covered or have access to govt run health care. That the nuns are willing to trust Democrats to hold to the promise not to use fed $$$ to fund abortion is no surprise… my bet is that about 95% of nuns voted for Obama… social justice trumps all other concerns… abortion or immigrant health care access, included.

    Apology time? Or will you just reload blanks into those holstered revolvers and shoot from the hip some more, B’fault? Or is it time for agent’P to make an appearance to echo chamber your points? LOL.

  • balconesfault

    Hey – if you want to say that you respect a politician who voted for the Stimulus Bill, the Bailout Bill, TARP, Cap-and-Trade, the House version of the healthcare bill, McCain-Feingold, and against Bush’s various tax cut bills, I salute you. Stupak has a 12% rating from the American Conservative Union, a 79% rating from the League of Conservation Voters, and a 91% rating from the ACLU.

    It is good to hear you acknowledge that someone can hold all those positions and still be more worthy of respect than “many others” with (R) next to their name.

    Does this mean that in the future, when we’re discussing some issue here, I now have some liberal politician whose opinion I can cite without having you resort to slandering him with gay slang?

  • Independent

    First, try this: “I, B’fault, apologize.” It’s easy for most of us… trolls can learn it, too.

  • Independent

    Nice dodge on your nonsense about Stupak being all ego, too.

    And the uninformed statements about nuns and political actions that animate them, B’fault.

    Dervish music playing in your background today?

  • balconesfault

    I’m sorry. I said “I salute you”. I didn’t expect that your ego craved such a formal declaration – certainly I can’t remember ever hearing that from you in the past when you’ve been proven wrong.

    But if you really do respect Stupak over many Republican politicians, despite his strong liberal leanings on most issues, I apologize for wrongly concluding that you believe all Republicans to be superior to any Democrats. This represents a breadth of character which I had not witnessed in your participation here to date.

  • March Madness (The rush to pass Obamacare)

    [...] what he has gone through for taking a principled stand. He doesn’t need David Frum mocking him. (Wear it as a badge of honour, Bart.) Unfortunately, some pro-life Democrats are being bamboozled [...]

  • mpolito

    The Catholic Church, through the USCCB, has the right to take any position it wants on any piece of legislation. Stupak is not going to get much love here because he is a more sociall conservative Democrat, and this site is really for socially liberal, economically moderate neoconservative Republicans. But lay off the Church- I am tired it it being attacked when all it is doing to taking a position on legislation. And incidentally, a group of nuns do not speak for the Church. The bishops have denounced the legislation, and any number of dissendents does not change that.

  • sinz54

    balconesfault:

    Stop smearing a guy who has deep religious beliefs.

    Stupak has deep religious reasons to oppose any bill that smacks of providing government support for abortion.

    You liberals are all contemptuous of religion, because it keeps getting in the way of your political goals. But all that proves is that Stupak is acting on principle, while you’re acting on political ambition.

  • balconesfault

    I’m bothered by a Congressman who is engaged in direct negotiations with religious authorities whom he believes represent a direct unbroken line from the divinity to our present time, and then attempting to take the dictates that result from those negotiations as a basis for public policy.

    I am sympathetic to any Congressman who says that their conscience, or even their faith, influences their politics. That is different from trying to not only channel their religious instructions from the Catholic Bishops, who are after all essentially arbiters of whether or not Rep Stupak can receive the Holy Sacraments, but trying to aggressively persuade others to support the position dictated by the Bishops.

    It has been the latter – his frequent public appearances, his claims of sizable enough support to block the legislation, that I consider grandstanding. Because as such it comes off as a “holier than thou” challenge to any Catholic who supports the healthcare bill in its current form. And there are, after all, quite a few of them.

    mpolito And incidentally, a group of nuns do not speak for the Church. The bishops have denounced the legislation, and any number of dissendents does not change that

    Exactly right. The church is a heirarchy, and the bishops have not only the power I noted above to withhold the Holy Sacraments, but even to excommunicate church members who do not follow their dictates. Thus, a Catholic who so publicly demonstrates as Stupak has done through this process that he is essentially following dictates from the Bishops – his religious superiors – he is single handedly reversing the position that JFK so eloquently staked: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute–where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act”.

  • Carney

    JFK’s statement had no basis in either Catholicism or American civic culture. He should not have made it.

  • SpartacusIsNotDead

    Sinz wrote: “You liberals are all contemptuous of religion . . . ”

    86% of Americans express a belief in God. We know that the 14% who don’t contain a fair number of conservatives and libertarians. It is factually incorrect to say that all or even most liberals are contemptuous of religion. In fact, you have no estimate whatsoever of the number of liberals who are contemptuous of religion.

  • balconesfault

    JFK’s statement had no basis in either Catholicism or American civic culture. He should not have made it.

    Ironically had he not made it, he’d probably have lived considerably longer, since he sure as hell wouldn’t have been elected President in 1960.

  • balconesfault

    It is factually incorrect to say that all or even most liberals are contemptuous of religion.

    It’s probably more accurate to say that Sinz and many other conservatives are contemptuous of the religious beliefs of most liberals.

    From the 2008 election, 78% of Jews, 54% of Catholics, 44% of non-evangelical Christians, and 26% of evangelical/born-again Christians voted for Obama.

  • Independent

    b’fault writes, after a few more gratuitous pokes in the eye to me, “This represents a breadth of character which I had not witnessed in your (Independent) participation here to date.”

    And dragging an apology out of you shows me something that I thought you were literally incapable of –an act of humility. It took some effort to get you there, screaming in opposition all the way… but that’s an uncharacteristic act of humility on your part, B’fault. The first I’ve witnessed.

    ——————————————————–

    B’fault worries: “I’m bothered by a Congressman who is engaged in direct negotiations with religious authorities whom he believes represent a direct unbroken line from the divinity to our present time….”

    That isn’t what Stupak was doing, B’fault; but I understand why you’d like to spin it that way.

    And it’s not at all what Stupak says influenced his decision about working with Democrat leaders on Democrat-approved and Democrat-sanctioned language that exists in at least a dozen statutes the Democrats have had a major hand in passing. Stupak wasn’t negotiating with religious authorities for the last 4 months –he was, B’fault, negotiating with fellow Democrats, fellow House Democrats, fellow Democrats in the Obama White House.

    Not the Catholic Conference.

    Not the Vatican.

    Democrats. The White House. After Democrats in the House and the White House had approved the language for Stupak. Not the Catholic Conference. Not the Vatican. Democrats, B’fault.

    What concerns Stupak -and he’s made this very clear- is that the Senate language is a significant departure from current law and is unacceptable. Period. he was willing to take other language from dozens of other, previously supported Democrat laws, and tweak them as needed. But the House Democrat leadership didn’t want to do that.

    You can try to make it an issue about whether or not Stupak is marching to the orders of his religious authorities or that he’s too cozy to some Christianists… but then, no one on your side got all that mad when NancyBoTox pushed her way into a Papal Audience in Rome or pushed her way into a front row seat at a Papal Mass in California.

    I can see why you’d like to try to discount Stupak as marching to the orders of the Catholic Conference –it helps your side to discredit anyone with a D that stands in the way of Obami Progress. Now, who exactly were you saying was the partisan hack a few threads ago, B’fault. Check the mirror –he’s looking back at you and smiling.

  • Independent

    And let’s take just a flash second to ponder why someone so avowedly non-bigoted on the role of religious leaders in public policy –that’s you, B’fault– is trying hard to take these Stupak 2 Democrat leader negotiations into the realm of Stupak is a puppet of the Catholic Church?

    When, right now, it’s all about Stupak negotiating with fellow House Democrats, Democrat leaders and White House Democrats?

    Could it be, maybe, that it appeases your religious bigot nature?

  • Independent

    “It is factually incorrect to say that all or even most liberals are contemptuous of religion.”

    Umm, no it isn’t.

    When asked if a voter attends church 1x/wk, 1-2x/yr or never… conservatives answered they attend church 1x or more/wk. 58-65%

    When liberals answered, they said they never attend church –about 65%.

    In 2000, Gore got the “Never attend church” vote –8:10 times. In 2004, Kerry got the “Never attend church” vote –7.5:10 times… slightly better because Kerry had that whole fake ChriSter Catholic thing going for him. University of Akron study.

    And by the way, scientists are more likely to be anti-God, too. And more likely to be Democrats. Go figure? Pew Research.

    What was that about Democrats and religion don’t go together?

  • balconesfault

    And dragging an apology out of you shows me something that I thought you were literally incapable of –an act of humility.

    I await any day your apology to all those who you claimed were off base when noting that Independent = MI-GOPer = GOProud.

    Well, no, I’m not awaiting it, actually.

    he was, B’fault, negotiating with fellow Democrats, fellow House Democrats, fellow Democrats in the Obama White House.

    Not the Catholic Conference.

    I had read that Stupak had numerous meetings with representatives of the Catholic Bishops on this issue. Perhaps that wasn’t negotiation. Maybe it was just … reinforcement?

    he was willing to take other language from dozens of other, previously supported Democrat laws, and tweak them as needed. But the House Democrat leadership didn’t want to do that.

    Actually, the Democratic House leadership does not have the option to do that in the face of a new 41 vote Republican Senate. For all practical matters at this junction they can pass the Senate bill as written, or they can accept that there will not be a healthcare bill that subsidizes coverage to make it affordable for 30 million Americans. Period.

    Stupak realizes this – which is why he wants the bill to pass. And his vote is his vote, answerable between he and his constituents. What again I was noting was his very public grandstanding on this issue even over the last few weeks when this reality was apparent to all – his attempts to get more Democrats to vote with him to block the Senate bill was going to ensure that the bill that he putatively supports the overall intent of would likely never get passed.

    I can see why you’d like to try to discount Stupak as marching to the orders of the Catholic Conference

    His portrayal of the process has pretty much pointed to that.

    –it helps your side to discredit anyone with a D that stands in the way of Obami Progress.

    What is Obami Progress? Is this like calling someone a Boi? I’m not acquainted with the dialogue.

  • balconesfault

    When asked if a voter attends church 1x/wk, 1-2x/yr or never… conservatives answered they attend church 1x or more/wk. 58-65%

    When liberals answered, they said they never attend church –about 65%.

    Once again, you prove yourself wholly incapable of reading statistics.

    Various polls show that around 65% of the people who say that they never attend church vote Democratic. This does NOT mean that 65% of Democrats never attend church.

    I await your acknowledgment of your error with baited breath.

  • Independent

    B’fault tries to spin away, once again the Dervish of Old, with “I had read that Stupak had numerous meetings with representatives of the Catholic Bishops on this issue. Perhaps that wasn’t negotiation. Maybe it was just … reinforcement?”

    Stupak, for the last 4 months, has been negotiating with fellow democrat house leaders and White House democrats about the Senate language contained in the favored health care bill. You’d like to avoid the simple fact you were caught being disingenuous –again.

    You can say all you want, B’fault. And, sigh, we’ve found there’s no shortage in your willingness and eagerness to filibuster on these kinds of issues when you’re caught red-handed, lying and wrong.

    Stupak said he was following what his constituents wanted him to do. You say he was getting divine instructions from the Catholic Bishops… in the same breath you acknowledged that Catholic leaders aren’t of one mind on Obama’s Health sCare bill.

    Having it both, cutting it two ways… it sounds like you’re crunching numbers for the White House and CBO.

    Religious bigots would prefer to spin this the way you’re heading, B’fault. It helps distract away from the simple truth that Stupak, a humble servant of his voters, is a D and isn’t supporting Obama’s pro-abortion language in the bill.

  • balconesfault

    Stupak, for the last 4 months, has been negotiating with fellow democrat house leaders and White House democrats about the Senate language contained in the favored health care bill.

    Yes, he has. Before that, he met numerous times with representatives of the Catholic Bishops to craft exact language that he could support. Since passage of the Senate Bill, his negotiations have largely been different discussions about trying to drop the Senate Language and change it to the House Language that the Bishops had approved. As I stated, if he also had the goal of passing a bill that would expand coverage to 30 million more Americans, that wasn’t going to happen.

    when you’re caught red-handed, lying and wrong.

    But I’m not lying, and moreover I’m not wrong. Thanks.

    You say he was getting divine instructions from the Catholic Bishops…

    I didn’t say he was getting divine instructions. I said he was getting instructions from a heirarchy which by his theology represents an unbroken lineage from the Divine, and which holds the power to excommunicate him or withhold sacraments.

    in the same breath you acknowledged that Catholic leaders aren’t of one mind on Obama’s Health sCare bill.

    I believe that mpolito correctly stated the case as to which Catholic voices can properly be called “leaders”, and which are, in his words, “dissidents”.

    It helps distract away from the simple truth that Stupak, a humble servant of his voters, is a D and isn’t supporting Obama’s pro-abortion language in the bill.

    So you believe that the Catholic Nuns support “pro-abortion language”, then.

  • DFL

    Just for the record, the Catholic Health Association is left-wing as are almost any Catholic nuns over the age of forty, whatever is left of them. The CHA’s president, “Sister” Carol Keehan, does not wear a habit and is as much a female religious as E.J. Dionne. Old age and death are killing off the left-wing remnant of the Catholic Church. Any support the CHA or the Catholic Leadership Conference of Women Religious gives to the Obama scheme is pointless. Both groups are supposed to be obedient to the Bishops and the Pope and, if they are not, they dishonor their vows. Just like the Kennedy family and the Cuomo family and the Pelosi family, they are Catholic in name only.

  • balconesfault

    Just like the Kennedy family and the Cuomo family and the Pelosi family, they are Catholic in name only.

    By extrapolation, does this suggest nobody should vote for a Catholic politician unless that voter believes in the doctrine of Papal infallability?

  • Independent

    B’fault… let’s recap for a second here… your fingers are writing sentences the truth simply can’t back up.

    You said, 1st post no less, that Stupak was “I’m pretty sure that it’s not up to our elected officials to stand as an arbiter between the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (and other Catholic groups, but that seems to be where he’s placed himself.”

    Which of course, was not even close to the truth. Stupak for last 4 months, as I pointed out to you 3 times now, has been negotiating with House Democrat leaders, White House Democrat leaders and other fellow Democrats.

    You’ve tried to disingenuously spin it to an issue of Stupak taking marching orders from religious authorities.

    Nope, he’s been working with Democrats. Democrat leaders. To get them to replace permissive pro-abortion language in the Seante HC bill. For the last 4 months, plus a tad. You want to spin it to a conventional, farLeft religious bigot’s paradise of yet another politician following Christianist orders.

    But now that his Party and the House Democrats and the WH Democrats got his vote to move the tin can a few more feet down the gutter back in Nov, they no longer need ol’ Bart and the Blue Dawgs. Tough luck for Bart… politics makes some real strange bedfellows.

    You contended it was Stupak’s ego and his need to follow those Christianist marching orders that are the problem here… neither is true. You lied and then tried to spin it into more familiar territory for the farLeft: a little game of religious bigotry.

    Finally, in post #4, you raised the issue of nuns… not mpolitio. Nice try at being even more disingenuous than before –you won in that rush to dishonesty.

    At end of all your restating of the restatements, you ask: “So you believe that the Catholic Nuns support “pro-abortion language”? As I pointed out to in post #5, I’ve known lots of nuns who push a liberal social justice agenda over pro-life sentiments on both abortion rights and assisted suicide. Yes, nuns and Catholic organizations do have pro-abortion supporters in their midst… the ones I know voted for a pro-abortion candidate in Nov –Obama.

    Not to be too personal, but I am always amazed at how disingenuously you argue these points, B’fault. It’s almost like being intellectually dishonest completes you, somehow. I get the religious bigot thing –that’s a given for most farLeft Democrats who sneer at religion with contempt.

    But even with your effort to inject your religious bigotry into these threads, the simple truth is that Bart Stupak has been negotiating these last 4 months with Democrat leaders in the House, in the Senate, at the White House and elsewhere. He just wanted to make certain that the ruling Party’s pro-abortion activists weren’t successful in advancing abortion another few steps down the way. And Stupak had loads of examples of acceptable language that Democrats approved in other statutes over the last 4 yrs… any of that would have been ok with him –as he told Greta on Fox News last week.

    I regret that you’ve returned to your old, proven ways of spinning like some whirling Dervish deep in a dancing trance.

  • Independent

    B’fault: “I await any day your apology to all those who you claimed were off base when noting that Independent = MI-GOPer = GOProud.”

    Umm, my recollection is it was you and another troll.

    Citation please? I’ll listen to the crickets chirp while you look for it.

  • balconesfault

    You said, 1st post no less, that Stupak was “I’m pretty sure that it’s not up to our elected officials to stand as an arbiter between the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (and other Catholic groups, but that seems to be where he’s placed himself.”

    Which of course, was not even close to the truth. Stupak for last 4 months, as I pointed out to you 3 times now, has been negotiating with House Democrat leaders, White House Democrat leaders and other fellow Democrats.

    Yes, but his current stand is more splitting the difference between the positions of those different Catholic groups.

    You do recall the whole point of this post, right? It was to cast aspersions on Stupak for not having courage, in the words of Mr. Frum.

    It is the position of the Catholic Health Association and the Catholic Leadership Conference of Women Religious that the bill should pass as written. It is the position of the Catholic Bishops that it should not pass without Stupak’s original language.

    He is splitting those positions by claiming to want the bill to pass (thus allying with the Catholic Health Association and the Catholic Leadership Conference of Women Religious ) while indicating that he himself will need to vote against it (thus being faithful to the dictates of the Bishops).

    Nope, he’s been working with Democrats. Democrat leaders. To get them to replace permissive pro-abortion language in the Seante HC bill.

    With language that was approved by the Bishops. You are using an awful lot of words to try to disguise this simple fact.

    But now that his Party and the House Democrats and the WH Democrats got his vote to move the tin can a few more feet down the gutter back in Nov, they no longer need ol’ Bart and the Blue Dawgs. Tough luck for Bart… politics makes some real strange bedfellows.

    So why does Bart say that he wants the legislation to pass?

    Finally, in post #4, you raised the issue of nuns… not mpolitio.

    Yes, and mpolito correctly noted that the nuns are not granted the authority to actually rule on dogma in the Catholic Church. But you keep suggesting … or actually insisting … that support for the current language is tantamount not only to a pro-abortion stance, but in post #1 to be support for infanticide.

    You have yet to answer whether you believe the nuns who support the current bill to be in favor of infanticide. I think whatever you have to say on this subject is pretty irrelevant until you explain your position.

  • balconesfault

    http://www.frumforum.com/why-republicans-must-pray-obamacare-passes#comments

    21 OK, MI-GOPer – how about you tell us how someone can favor government mandating that insurance companies pick up anyone without a pre-existing condition … and also reject the idea of government mandating that everyone buy into the insurance pool?

    25 Independent // Mar 15, 2010 at 4:42 pm
    B’fault please note, that was Independent, not Minnesota GOPer. This isn’t the Italian Job and I’m not asking you to call me the Napster, dewd.

    Thanks for playing … dewd.

  • balconesfault

    But you keep suggesting … or actually insisting … that support for the current language is tantamount not only to a pro-abortion stance, but in post #1 to be support for infanticide.

    Actually, you being willing to embrace a childish literalism when it suits your purposes in order to avoid dealing with intent, I will note that this should have been #2.

  • Independent

    B’fault at #31… so now you’re retreating from your claim of “all those who claimed” is now just a single troll, you? Just B’fault? Hmmm, kind of silly how far into the darkened corner you retreat when pressed.

    As for Stupak spending the last 4 months negotiating with fellow Democrats and you contending it was “religious authorities” he was pimping for… I’m glad to see you admit your error and embrace a little more truthfulness –even if fading.

    The House version language wasn’t “instructions” from religious authorities as you claimed. The language, as Stupak has readily noted, can be found expressed in a variety of other passed and proposed statutes –all with Democrat support and approval.

    Nuns, as we’ve made abundantly clear to even you, B’fault, do embrace pro-abortion rights positions that are at odds with Catholic teaching. Some of them, including Sister Carol Keehan’s order, even have senior nuns who say the Mass in direct disobedience of the Pope and local bishops. Why you keep pressing the query even after it’s been well answered, is puzzling even granting your inclination toward religious bigotry.

    You’ve got the antiquated notion that nuns are somehow the perfect subordinate religious entity for the Church. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Ignorance seems to be your constant companion this day. Hey, that’s better than religious bigot, right? It’s progress.

  • balconesfault

    B’fault at #31… so now you’re retreating from your claim of “all those who claimed” is now just … B’fault?

    First, others also made the claim. But I guess what you’re resting your case on here is that directly trying to mislead me is somehow acting nobly. Clearly you had no intent to mislead anyone else.

    As for Stupak spending the last 4 months negotiating with fellow Democrats and you contending it was “religious authorities” he was pimping for…

    Wow – you refer to someone acting in a way they believe their faith dictates they act to be “pimping”? And you call others religious bigots?

    The House version language wasn’t “instructions” from religious authorities as you claimed.

    I believe that it was. He clearly met with representatives of the Catholic Bishops a number of times to resolve which language would be acceptable to them.

    Nuns, as we’ve made abundantly clear to even you, B’fault, do embrace pro-abortion rights positions that are at odds with Catholic teaching.

    Do you contend that nuns embrace “infanticide”. You’re the one who likes to throw volatile words on the fire. You put them out. Not my job.

    You’ve got the antiquated notion that nuns are somehow the perfect subordinate religious entity for the Church.

    On matters of theology, nuns and lay members of the church are subordinate to the Bishops. The Bishops are subordinate to the Pope. I’m surprised you didn’t know that.

    Although maybe Independent isn’t a Catholic, the way MI-GOPer is.

  • Independent

    B’fault, you started this thread with some silly notions of what animated Bart Stupak –among which was the farLeft RachelMadCow by way of Daily Kos talking point #1 that Stupak was all “ego” and he “painted himself into a corner”. She was still using that lame game this evening, btw– you guys have to update your talking points.

    Then you obligingly parroted talking point #2 with the let’s smear and discredit Stupak by claiming he’s following the marching orders of Catholic bishops.

    Of course, he isn’t. He was negotiating with Democrat leaders –not the Church– since the House passed his language in their version in Nov.

    He had lots of specific language choices available to insert –not limited to just the language the Democrat House approved last Nov. Language that had already passed in several bills on other topics and was contained in several proposed pieces of legslation, not related to the current HC bill.

    Of course, that doesn’t help you discredit a pro-universal coverage democrat like Stupak who is representing his constituents.

    Because he’s a pro-Life Democrat and his issue targets the potential of abortionists to secure funding and support for abortion, you’re hell bent on tarring him like all good farLeft goons… Rachel MadCow and Daily Kos included.

    I’m still wondering what drives your contempt for religion so much that you take great aim, with blanks, to fire off a couple of rounds at Stupak even tho’ he’s a D and in solid support of universal health care… and a good public servant.

    The hate toward religion you and so many Democrats harbor must be corrosive on your tarnished soul. It’s a shame the power of pray can’t heal your infirmity.

  • Independent

    B’fault: “On matters of theology, nuns and lay members of the church are subordinate to the Bishops. The Bishops are subordinate to the Pope. I’m surprised you didn’t know that.”

    Umm, not correct on that one, either. Senior nuns in Sister Carol Keenan’s order, Daughters of Charity (an order that predates America’s founding, btw), are actively saying the Mass on a regular basis. It’s the core practice of our Catholic theology, B’fault.

    And yes, we’ve answered it 4 times now, abortion is infanticide because life begins at conception for Catholics. Nuns who support abortion rights –as well as assisted suicide– are operating contrary to the teachings of the Church. But it doesn’t matter to them… for them, they’re operating off the “higher moral code” of their sense of liberal activist social justice.

    Frankly, it’s why so many nuns would find Obama an attractive politician… he shares their sense that the ends justify the means… and it’s why, in Michigan, we had so many nuns in the By Any Means Necessary movement.

  • Independent

    By the way, you’ve been wiggling a lot on this notion that you claimed Stupak was actively engaged in negotiating language with Catholic authorities.

    You said here: “I’m bothered by a Congressman who is engaged in direct negotiations with religious authorities…”

    Stupak wasn’t. He was enaged in negotiations with fellow Democrats in House Leadership, the Senate and the White House –but that didn’t stop you from suggesting he is –disinguenuous and intellectually dishonest. The Democrat bi-fecta.

  • balconesfault

    B’fault: “On matters of theology, nuns and lay members of the church are subordinate to the Bishops. The Bishops are subordinate to the Pope. I’m surprised you didn’t know that.”

    Umm, not correct on that one, either. Senior nuns in Sister Carol Keenan’s order, Daughters of Charity (an order that predates America’s founding, btw), are actively saying the Mass on a regular basis. It’s the core practice of our Catholic theology, B’fault.

    Nonetheless, they are subordinate to the Bishops, who are subordinate to the Pope – or they are not members of the Roman Catholic Church.

    And yes, we’ve answered it 4 times now, abortion is infanticide because life begins at conception for Catholics.

    Thank you. You have clearly now stated your position that you believe a substantial number of the women who have dedicated their lives to God’s service as nuns support infanticide. That is all I asked for.

    Stupak wasn’t. He was enaged in negotiations with fellow Democrats in House Leadership, the Senate and the White House

    And before that, in order to settle the language which would be acceptable, with the Bishops. I’m sorry that fact disturbs you enough that you keep denying it.

  • balconesfault

    The hate toward religion you and so many Democrats harbor must be corrosive on your tarnished soul. It’s a shame the power of pray can’t heal your infirmity.

    I am at peace with the highest teachings of my religion.

    Meanwhile, the current Pope has said:

    “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed to those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.”

  • athensboy

    Stupak probably does believe strongly in his views, but I sense he like to be the center of attention too. From what I’ve read the Senate bill is actually more restrictive on using federal funds for abortion than the House version.I also get tired of conservatives blathering how their more godlike than Democrats or liberals.And am I to believe that attending church makes one more faithful than a non-attending person? Thats bunk. I’m tired of conservatives thinking their the smartest people in the room, and that their the only ones that “get it”.Stupak might prevent 30 million Americans from getting healthcare, how Christian is that?

  • Independent

    B’fault, I am always amazed at how farLeft trolls at FF can badger endlessly until they’ve reduced the argument to a narrow, infantile point and then declare victory –you are probably the worst offender of that practice here. Next to TeaBagged or TerryF99 or whatever name of the week he’s gotten past the editors’ ban.

    Over and over and over again; thread after thread.

    Simple facts: some nuns, including the Daughters of Charity order, do things in the political arena that are contrary to the Church’s teachings. It’s not that hard to fathom unless you’re a debater trying hard to squeeze out a gotcha moment where none exists –as you’ve been trying here.

    When, in 81, Pope John Paul II famously told priests to get out of politics and political office and tend to the spiritual being of their flocks, he did not include nuns in his blanket directive because nuns and brothers within orders have always been treated differently than priests, msgrs, bishops and cardinals. Of course, JPII was probably the most political prelate the Catholic Church has had in the 20thC, too… so go figure.

    We’ve often discussed here that liberals –and farLeft liberals in particularly– seem to share a deep-seated, visceral, pathological animus toward organized religion. We see it in the approach of the Democrat Party toward public policy. We see it in traditional or conventional Democrat Party constitutencies –which lead the fight to secularize American culture and remove religious references from our public square, our history books, our children’s lips. We see it in the way that leading Democrats and ditch digging Democrats defend anti-religious bigots -and even cheerlead their bigotry as you’ve done for Bill Maher and others.

    You played the religious bigot card in this thread on Bart Stupak and even a pro-B’fault and normally supportive peer like Sinz54 called you to task for it.

    Now, in your desperate comment at #38, we see you play the religious bigot and gay bigot cards –all at once. Stunning for a disciple of the farLeft who routinely rails against the intolerance of the Right by acting like a bigot.

    It’s a shame that prayer isn’t within your province. It might heal whatever deep wounds were inflicted on you by religion in your earlier life. You may think you’re at peace with the highest teachings of your religion –is atheism a religion on the farLeft now– but your animus toward religion and the Catholic Church says otherwise.

    The point you raised about Stupak being engaged for the last 4 months with Catholic authorities on the language that was already approved by House Democrats and leaders is patently false. Stupak was engaged in negotiations with Democrats –not the Catholic Church for the last 4 months.

    That you continue to deny it says the pathological addiction you have to lying about religion and practicing your bigotry has spread to other aspects of your life, like political discourse. As Obama learned in his Democrat Party Pep Rally on Health Care before the joint session of Congress, when you keep lying over and over, people in the room will be forced to out you as a Liar.

    We’ve done that here. It gives us no comfort. You’ll probably do it in the next thread as well.

  • Independent

    athensboy: “Stupak probably does believe strongly in his views, but I sense he like to be the center of attention too.”

    Well, that’s the point that B’fault led with in this thread and he was proven wrong –I know and have worked with Stupak. He is one of the few humble men serving in Congress… democrat or GOPer.

    Center of attention? LOL –he’s a wall flower. It’s tough to get him at distict events to speak. It’s tough to get him to talk about the public’s business… he’s rather talk about your family, how the fish are hitting, if the deer are feeding on the meadow flowers in bloom or the remaining thickness of the ice on a neighborhood lake –it seems there’s always ice on the lakes in the UP.

    I’ve riden in countless elevators with him, walked the halls of Congress with him and he doesn’t inject himself into conversation like almost every other Congressman I know. He’s not the Rotarian-styled Congressman… he’s a true public servant.

    Short story: we were coming up from the new visitor’s center in the Capitol one day after lunch and there were a bunch of 25-30 people from Montana we joined in walking down the hall for maybe 3-4 minutes. A husband & wife next to us asked a couple of questions… Stupak and I gave them the answers and some tips… then a couple more… etc. When we wer breaking off, the wife asked if Stupak was a tour guide. He didn’t bat an eye at what would have royally ticked off a demi-god like Jack Murtha, he said “Yes… it’s the best job in the world. My name is Bart Stupak.” I chuckled when they were out of hearing and he pointed out that he was, indeed, “a tour guide. Every Congressman should think of themselves that way”.

    Center of attention? Ego backed him into a corner?

    Nope. He isn’t Jack Murtha or NancyBoTox or Harry gReid or John Kerry.

    FYI

  • balconesfault

    Simple facts: some nuns, including the Daughters of Charity order, do things in the political arena that are contrary to the Church’s teachings.

    I understand that. I also contend that you are acting badly when you claim that anyone who is pro-choice is “promoting infanticide”. You are the one who has to deal with that accusation being leveled by you against nuns, thanks to the logical chain you’ve established.

    We’ve often discussed here that liberals –and farLeft liberals in particularly– seem to share a deep-seated, visceral, pathological animus toward organized religion.

    You and other conservatives make that charge, largely because you seem fundamentally incapable of understanding the liberal argument – that organized religion is actually most healthy when it remains something that is not intertwined with politics.

    You played the religious bigot card in this thread on Bart Stupak and even a pro-B’fault and normally supportive peer like Sinz54 called you to task for it.

    Just because Sinz doesn’t echo your irrational hatred of people who don’t accept your screeds doesn’t make him “normally supportive”. Sinz and I have honest arguments on most points, but usually they are honest disagreements.

    That was not a religious bigot card. Pointing out that Stupak had put himself into a position of representing the position of the Catholic Bishops is not being a religious bigot.

    Now, in your desperate comment at #38, we see you play the religious bigot and gay bigot cards –all at once. Stunning for a disciple of the farLeft who routinely rails against the intolerance of the Right by acting like a bigot.

    It is remarkable that you find it acceptable to label nuns as being supportive of infanticide on a basis of Church doctrine … and yet call someone a bigot for quoting the words of the Pope.

    In other words, you have the right to make moral judgements that may not line up with the teachings of the church heirarchy … but the nuns don’t.

  • balconesfault

    NancyBoTox

    Meow!