RE: Stupak
The rats continue to slink off into the night…
Yet another example of our neutered leadership that are afraid to stand up and justify their voting record.
Interesting spin you have there Flickster
Is Stupak indeed “afraid to justify his voting record”, or could we possibly take him at his word that he has thought of retiring for the past 3 election cycles, but has always been talked into staying?
Do you simply take whatever Ken Spain of the NRCC says at face value? Try using some critical thinking skills.
Losing and retiring because you expect to lose produce the same result, so who cares? What’s it to you?
Clueless as to who this is, and care less.
So you didn’t read your own link?
I think he’s human. He knows that he will face a very strong Republican campaign against him, so he will have to work harder than ever to get re-elected. I can’t blame him for wondering whether all that hard work will be really worth it.
actually, just picked a convenient headline for reference in case someone was unaware…
I think it a reflection of the weak willed leadership we currently have in place.
A weak willed man would have voted against the bill.
Good thing he’s leaving then, eh? We don’t even have to vote him out.
What is your definition of a vote and run coward, flickster?
This is true.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m glad to see him go. He was strong willed, but his will wasn’t in favor of what I wanted. So calling him weak-willed is very off base. Calling him cowardly is similarly misplaced.
Calling him wrong is right on the mark. 
Someone who would rather slink off instead of standing up and being proud of their decision and justify their voting record to their constituents
Nah, The GOP is a spent force. Stupak knows he can’t win in a primary against a real Democrat.
Good Riddance.
Ok. But (I suppose in theory) politicians vote on legislation every single term they’re in office. Are they never supposed to retire?
So does that apply to all retiring representatives, or just the ones who voted for the healthcare reform bill, or some other group?
Actually, it doesn’t, potentially in a few different ways. Running and losing in the general election puts a Republican in office, where a different Democrat might have won. Running and losing in the primary will still give you a different Democrat in the general, but with a depleted coffer due to an expensive race to unseat an incumbent, which might also put a Republican in office. Declining to run has the potential to change the primary race, and thereby the general election, entirely.
Interesting. I would have thought there was a lot more anger from the Republican side than from the left-wing Democratic side against Bart Stupak. I would also have thought that a left-wing Dem would find it harder to win in a conservative and predominantly rural district. If Saltonstall is the candidate, then I’d think the Republicans would win that district comfortably (despite my political leanings going much more her way).
That’s just your personal opinion, based on your personal wants and needs…and as such, I have no right to question it, do I?
I do disagree with you, but classy post.
Qualifier; the GOP may be spent politically, but there is a serious conservative groundswell in this country that the left side of the aisle would do well to pay attention to. You can call them nutters if you want, and you may even be right, but don’t discount them; doing so could have disasterous consequences.