I've sent a letter regarding the "Stup(id)ak Issue" to Speaker Pelosi and House Majoirty Leader Hoyer.
My premise is simple: Power is granted. Stop giving Stupak power that he wouldn't otherwise have.
More over the fold.
Dear Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer,
I am writing to you today regarding Bart Stupak and the so-called "Stupak Dozen" (which appears to include as few as 11 and as many as 14 other Congresspeople besides Mr. Stupak).
Each of you holds some measure of power within the House of Representatives and within the United States generally. That power was granted to you - first, each of you was granted power by your constituents when they elected you. Second, you were each granted power by your peers when you respectively won your positions as Speaker and Majority Leader.
My point here is simple: in our American Democracy, generally, power is granted. It is given by one person or group of persons to another, particularly with respect to elections. Each of you is but one member of a much larger body - but your power extends well beyond that 1-in-435 ratio because your peers determined that each of you was worthy of the power to set the agenda and compel the activities of the United States House of Representatives.
So my question for you is simple: WHY are you granting power to Bart Stupak?
Unlike each of you, the only power granted to Stupak before this whole imbroglio around healthcare reform began was his simple 1-in-435 ratio. He's one Congressman from one district in one state, unless someone else comes in and sponsors him to a powerful position by granting power beyond which he would otherwise have.
Every time you indicate that you are going to sit down with Bart Stupak and "hammer out" a compromise with respect to the abortion language in the Senate bill and the deficit Bart Stupak alleges, you give him MORE power over you. Surely you must know that.
I understand that assembling a coalition can cause a person to rise to a more powerful position than that which they were in without that coalition. I understand further that Stupak claims to have assembled such a coalition in the "Stupak Dozen" and that he uses this to try to compel a definitively minority opinion (anti-choice) on the Democratic majority on the coat-tails of legislation where the issue of abortion is so infintessimally small compared to the other issues addressed, it's ridiculous and frankly criminal.
But you are both feeding that power when you cede that a) the coalition is set in stone and is immovable; and b) that the coalition's demands must be met, must be mollified, for anything constructive to be allowed to occur.
Here are the fourteen (besides Stupak - forget about him - don't give him MORE power by paying any more attention to him) that are likely to be in the coalition with Stupak:
Solomon Ortiz (D-TX)
Jerry Costello (D-IL)
James Oberstar (D-MN)
Steve Driehaus (D-OH)
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
Paul Kanjorski (D-PA)
Kathleen Dahlkemper (D-PA)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Brad Ellsworth (D-IN)
Dan Lipinski (D-IL)
Charlie Wilson (D-OH)
Joseph Cao (R-LA)
Dale Kildee (D-MI)
Marion Berry (D-AR)
I'll state for the record - I don't believe in pro-life Democrats. I never will. At the same time, however, I don't believe in a litmus test for the Democratic Party. This place me, as my mother would say, "on the horns of a dilemma".
I'm willing to believe that each of these fourteen people - despite the fact that I can't personally understand it - is truly pro-life and it's an issue that feel is so central to their sense of right and wrong, so critical in fact, that it's a show-stopper. There's an easy way to address these convictions: tell them the truth.
Tell them that, contrary to what Stupak has said, there is no provision for public funding for abortions in the Senate version of the healthcare reform bill. Tell them that, contrary to what Stupak has said, it is NOT true that every person enrolled in a healthcare plan regardless of whether or not that plan includes abortion coverage will have to contribute some amount monthly outside of the subsidy to cover abortions separate from public funds. Explain to them that only those persons receiving subsidies AND electing abortion coverage will be required to pay additional out of pocket for the sole purpose of keeping public monies away from funding abortions. Make it very clear that the word is getting out that they're hanging their hats on holding up healthcare reform on ostensibly moral grounds and that they are either so gullible it's hilarious or so lazy that they haven't bothered to check for themselves.
If they're truly driven by conviction and not some other agenda, they will relent.
But if that's not enough, you can offer another bit of information. Bart Stupak recently moved out of his longtime residence at 113 C Street in Washington DC. Rumors have long been flying around "The Fellowship" or "The Family" as it relates to C Street and its residents. One of the more interesting facts to arise out of these ongoing investigations is that C Street residents pay $600 per month in rent for what would, otherwise, cost them about $1,500 on the open market. That's a $900 savings per resident per month. Further, progress is being made in definitively proving that the C Street residence is owned by The Fellowship, a right-wing Christian group. While I'm not remotely a fan of right-wing Christian groups, I defend in principle their right to exist and to practice whatever religion they choose. The same goes for Bart Stupak. But when he's receiving a $900 per month benefit from a religious-right organization totaling $97,200 over the nine years he resided at C Street, it becomes a legitimate issue. It would interesting further to see if Stupak has claimed any of that $97K+ as an in-kind donation on his taxes, and/or if he's violated any ethics or criminal laws in accepting what appears to be a right-wing Christian bribe in the form of triple-A housing at tenement prices (source).
I imagine that contacting the other likely 14 members of Stupak's coalition and whispering in their ears that the closer they stand to Stupak, the more likely they are to get hit by shrapnel when the C Street issue explodes. Sometimes distance is a friend to power - perhaps that should be made clear.
Remove his coalition and you remove his power. Refuse to grant him attention or negotiations, and you return him to the depths from which he inexplicably rose. But PLEASE - don't abet his power by granting it to him any longer.
In writing this letter to you, I'm reminded of a partial quote from author and astronomer Carl Sagan:
Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.
Words to the wise for both of you moving forward.
I may be politically naive - I don't know - but it seems to me that you work at cross-purposes to yourself if you continue to entertain this charlatan who has proven himself to be either woefully underinformed or a liar, and who has a very questionable agenda bankrolled by people with a great deal of animus towards the Democratic Party and its principles.
Best Regards,
RenaRF