Reply #3: Interesting. Didn't know that about Stupak. Sometimes, intentions matter. Sometimes they don't. [View All]

[pampango]

It does raise the issue of whether voting against the HCR for the "right" reasons (like Kucinich) vs. the "wrong" reasons (Stupak, blue dogs and republicans) makes a fundamental difference.

Similarly, if Iraqi civilians (or German civilians in WWII) die accidentally as a result of US actions ("collateral damage") is that morally equivalent to car/suicide bombs that attack civilians intentionally. In either case the civilian ends up dead and his family is probably not impressed with the fact that it was "accidental" and that the culprit had the best of intentions or, in the other case, that you killed him to make a political point about occupation.

IMHO, one factors in the "collateral damage" of one's actions and the principles that motivate you and make a decision. Defeating HCR will have collateral damage, at least in the short run. In the longer run, after the 2010 or 2012 elections we might optimistically put together enough support to pass a better form of HCR. If Kucinich and Stupak, for very different reasons of course, are willing to accept "collateral damage" for the sake of their principles that is their decision to make. And they will live with the consequences - good or bad - of their actions, just like a soldier in Iraq (or Germany in WWII).