Bart Stupak will almost certainly be replaced by a repub

[cali]

for those of you who say it doesn't matter because he's no different than a repub, let me correct you. Stupak opposed the Iraq War. That's not the only issue where Stupak is preferable to any puke who will replace him. Labor, civil liberties, the environment.
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=26912&type=category&category=13&go.x=12&go.y=7
I'm not saying I like the guy. I am saying he's preferable to who's likely to replace him.

[sufrommich]

1. Yep, he was the best we could do in that district. The

people celebrating this are in for a rude awakening.

[cali]

2. nah, they'll keep insisting that he's just as bad as any repuke who will replace him.

[sufrommich]

7. But of course he's not bad at all. Wait till we get the new

NRA/teaparty backed republican that takes his place.

[michreject]

18. Stupak had a A NRA rating

try again

[sufrommich]

20. I'm well aware that Stupak had an NRA rating. It helped him

get elected in a conservative district.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. Some DUERS Love The NRA

I am not a fan of theirs, not at all, but I won't go to the ramparts against DUERS that like the NRA.

[NJmaverick]

9. That's it too many naive people on the left that think the world shares their views

[Jokerman]

3. I'm afraid that may happen with Bayh's seat as well.

I'm disgusted by many things Bayh has done but his replacement isn't likely to be any better.

[cali]

6. the truth is his replacement will almost certainly be worse- and I can't stand Bayh.

[hlthe2b]

4. That is my fear as well...

[lonestarnot]

5. Ackety. Hate to see that happen, not that I will miss stupak.

[NJmaverick]

8. This is critical and is something so many on DU don't appreciate

[FSogol]

14. +1 Agreed. n/t

[trotsky]

17. Sadly true.

Many DUers would apparently be OK with a House of Representatives that was 434 Republicans and Dennis Kucinich.

[Toots]

10. That is politics...

If Democrats had any sort of real message maybe they could win some seats. Democrats allow the Right wing to dominate the airwaves and then stand around and wonder why people don't understand what they are trying to do..If we as a nation are so stupid that we elect Republicans to office then we deserve whatever they do to us...Democrats just don't seem to get the message...Appearance becomes reality...They need to have an appearance or they are history.

[kctim]

13. That is blind politics

Voters in these districts are not stupid or brainwashed, they understand the 'real message' and do not like it. That is why people like Stupak win in these districts.

Making excuses to justify rejection of ones ideas never works.

[ieoeja]

21. No. They do not.

I grew up in that sort of district. I still visit it a lot. In 2000, my brother, a very Liberal Democrat, knew every pro-Bush/anti-Gore story I knew, but almost zero of the pro-Gore/anti-Bush stories.

And it was pretty easy to figure out why while I was there. Local TV, radio and newspapers provided the pro-Bush/anti-Gore stories, but none of the pro-Gore/anti-Bush stories. Even the local Democrats, following the DLC gameplan, were constantly bashing Gore and national Democrats.

So, no, they probably do NOT understand the 'real message'. They have probably never even heard the 'real message'. If they knew the real message, then every poll would not show Americans agree with Democrats overwhelmingly on almost every issue, while the country is still split evenly between the parties.

You can't know something that you have never heard of.

[kctim]

27. Funny

My Republican friends say the EXACT opposite. Especially the part where Americans would agree with Republicans on almost every issue if not for the 'evil media.'

I live in "that sort of district" and I can assure you that we understand the 'real message' and it is not something we support in full. Our values, our culture, our life, is different and we do not want it ran like it is not.

Stupak is "retiring" because he knows he will lose.

[ieoeja]

28. What don't you support?

[kctim]

35. Kind of purple

Off the top of my head, my area seems to not support higher taxes, intrusive government, anti 2nd Amendment legislation, single payer, gay-marriage, government paid abortions.

Conservative purple where the wrong position on any of those above can cost you the election.

[ieoeja]

36. Thanks for proving my point.

Are they really against higher taxes on the wealthiest 2%? Or do they believe that they "understand" those taxes are on them?

Given that the Republican Party supports far more intrusive policies than the Democratic Party, they obviously do not understand this issue.

Given that there hasn't been any Democratic firearms regulation on the table in almost two decades, they obviously do not understand this issue.

Given that the vast overwhelming majority of elected Democrats do not support Single Payer, believing otherwise shows that you do not understand that issue.

Given that the national Democratic Party officially opposes Same Gender Marriage, they obviously do not understand this issue.

Given that there has NEVER, EVER been a proposal for government paid abortions, they are obviously completely clueless on that issue.


You have essentially proven my position. Clearly they do not understand the Democratic Party's position on these issues. Instead, they understand what the the Rightists accuse the Democrats of attempting.

[kctim]

37. YOU proved your point to yourself

You do understand that I said "support in full" and that "candidates can be seen as wrong on the issue if they go against what we believe," right? That doesn't mean we don't understand the party position, it means we either agree with it, or disagree with the party position, such as Stupak, or that we like it right where its at, like the 2nd Amendment.

The party position isn't to tax the wealthy at 99.9%, but we really don't care or worry about what they make. The high taxes that put them on the wrong side of our vote are the taxes that hit us personally.

The party position isn't to dictate what we can eat, but if they start, they are on the wrong side of our vote.

The party position isn't to further infringe on our 2nd Amendment right, but history shows what happens when they try.

The party position isn't single payer, but they would be on the wrong side of our vote if they forced it on us.

The party position isn't support of gay-marriage, but they would be on the side of our vote if they passed it. (I fully support it though, and I believe it is trending so that it will not be such a factor in the future)

The party position isn't support of govt paid abortions, but they would be on the wrong side of our vote each time they try to push that through.

Understand? You're position is only proven IF every Democrat agrees 100% with the Democratic Party platform and no Democrat ever proposes legislation that takes it one step further.

[ieoeja]

38. You said they don't like our message. Now you admit what they don't like are not part of our message

[kctim]

39. You are correct

I should have said we do not always support it in full and that the biggest problem is when the party tries to go to far left.

My fault for not being clear. I apologize.

[ieoeja]

45. And I was just going to amend my reply because I didn't address a point you made.

So I apologize as well.

You said it could be about the individual Democrat then I talked about the Party. I would say that too often the individual gets branded by incorrect impressions of the Party. But given that 7/8ths of the State House representatives for this district are Democrats, I would think the Party must not have an awful reputation.

Really, my complaint is that local Democrats in less liberal regions across the nation, particularly since Bill Clinton's success '92 run "against" the Democratic congress, end up parroting Rightist propaganda about the national party instead of pointing out the national party is not what the Rightists claim it is.

While the #1 reason (by a wide margin) for the '94 loss of the House after four decades of control was the Assault Weapons Ban, I believe the above every-Democrat-for-Demself strategy is the only reason the GOP still has the success they do. After all, what has the GOP *not* done wrong when they were in charge?

:toast:

[cali]

15. yes, yes. it's really that simple. not.

[onehandle]

11. Yeah, but we must stick to our values purity pact.

President Nader says so.

[RainDog]

22. what a stupid, whorish remark n/t

[Statistical]

12. People (including on DU) seem to forget all politics is local.

Just because 61% of country supports x doesn't mean crap when 80% of your district is OPPOSED to x.

Stupac district is very conservative. He was threading a fine line between bringing them to the center and losing his job (to be replaced by someone who will move the ball 80 yards to the right).

If Stupac had tried to adopt the policies of say a Kucinich he simply would have lost in a landslide.

[Redbear]

16. Obama won in Stupak's district

so it can't be impossible for Connie Saltonstall to win it.

http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/24052

[cali]

19. not impossible. just very, very difficult

that was a dem year. this one? not so much.

[Raineyb]

23. So we're supposed to stick with the DINO because electing someone better is too hard.

Exactly the problem with the party in the first place.

[RainDog]

26. in addition to refusing to support candidates who are not blue dogs

as per WillyT's thread.

if democrats want support, they earn it. progressives are not the trust fund bank for blue dogs.

[Kaleva]

31. Obama got 50% of the vote here.

Bush easily won the district in 2000 and 2004. The district is often described as "pro-life, pro-gun and pro-working families". Connie Saltonstall is pro-choice, no one knows where she stands on gun issues and she didn't recieve any endorsements from unions in her 2008 run for the 105th state house seat.

[LynneSin]

24. I get a little bit annoyed when we label anti-choice politicians as moderates

I've heard that about Bob Casey Jr. and yet he had one of the most liberal voting records for incoming freshman. Moderates are not single issue - they are many many issues that create that stance. Casey is very pro-union, against the war and supports many other progressive causes that we support. And even when it comes to choice he's not a purist in his anti-abortion stance - he is ok with birth control and funding family planning. To me Casey is pro-life because he puts more emphasis on taking care of the fetus after it is born. Most true anti-choicers don't really care about the baby after it is is born - just the fetus.

[RainDog]

25. exactly. moderates are NOT anti-choice

anti-choice is a RADICALLY RIGHT WING position.

only 14% of people in this nation are anti-choice, at most. less when their own daughter is raped.

[suffragette]

33. Thank you

I feel the same.
Add to that his C-Street connection. CREW's demand for an ethics probe of this was likely a strong factor in his retiring and I have the same questions they do about his having lived there.

[grahamhgreen]

29. He WAS a Republican.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

30. No matter how awesome you feel after saying slogans like that, Stupak wasn't a Republican.

The only people in the modern Republican party are hard right ideologues and that wasn't Stupak.

[grantcart]

48. Did you notice that when he was saying the slogan he was also stomping his feet loudly

Certainly that counts for something.

[Kaleva]

32. Can you name a Repub who is anti-war and pro-union?

Stupak voted against the IWR and was endorsed by the following unions in 2008:

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 324
Michigan State AFL-CIO
Michigan Teamsters Joint Council No. 43
National Association of Social Workers
National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU)
Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
United Auto Workers (UAW)

[grahamhgreen]

46. OK, I take it back....

[ieoeja]

34. 7 of 8 State House representatives from Stupak's district are ... Democrats?

From another thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x264463


State House Representatives within Federal House District MI-01:

110 - Mike Lahti - D
109 - Steve Lindsey - D
108 - Judy Nerat - D
107 - Gary McDowell - D
106 - Andy Newman - D
105 - Kevin Elsenhelmer (sp?) - R
104 - Wayne Schmidt - D, and
103 - Joe Sheltown - D

[Kaleva]

44. I believe they are all Stupak kind of Democrats.

[Whisp]

40. thats what CNN keeps saying, so it must be true.

....

[n.michigan]

41. So why are you starting this thread? To endorse a Republican instead or to thank Bart of Rome?

Yeah, people actually vote Democrat in this district.

They voted for Obama too and now they have been deceived because it doesn't matter which party if the issues of poverty, justice, education, war and peace, the environment and financial security get addressed. You forget that Bush pillaged the nation. Thats how Obama won.

[sufrommich]

42. Talking about democrats ,politics and elections is pretty

par for the course for this site. Believe me, not talking about something will not make it go away.

[Kaleva]

47. CQ Politics now rates the MI-01 district race a tossup

"The previous rating had been Safe Democratic."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20100409/pl_cq_politics/politics3638342_1

"With his retirement announcement, five Democratic state legislators – including Senate Democratic Leader Mike Prusi – say they may run for Stupak's seat. Kevin Elsenheimer, the state House GOP leader, also is showing interest."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/09/bart-stupak-retiring-tea-_n_531460.html

[Enrique]

49. where do you get 'almost certainly'?

did you mean he might get replaced by a republican? I'd agree with that.