Probably Nothing Except This:
They both owe Bart Stupak an apology.
Lets start with Tom, aka the 'American Papist Punk' who is the more elegant, slender European looking version of Hannity. I would say 'evil twin' but he would take that literally and I don't want to be guilty of what I here denounce: The Politics of Personal Destruction.
Rather than rejoice at the emergence of a strong Pro-Life contingent in the Democratic Party that actually can affect legislation, http://www.aolnews.com/healthcare/article/democrats-find-new-ground-on-abortion/19408944, he calls Stupak a traitor and accused him of betrayal.
This makes you wonder what their real objective is. Stupak held his ground to the very end, insisted that pro-life protections be in the bill, insisted that not only language be in the bill but insisted that a firm statement by Waxman on congressional intent be articulated on the record and that the President himself reaffirm what he said by issuing an Executive Order that makes clear that the Hyde Amendment will be protected- even in the future exchanges. I really wonder whether Mr. Peters actually reads.
And Rachel- who launched an entire segment previous to the Stupak flip (she was kinder afterwards) with someone from CREW, an integrity in government group threatening to take him to the ethics committee over the fact that they wondered whether he declared what they considered sub-market rental payments on that infamous "C" street house tax evasion.
First, Ms. Maddow, $600.00 a month for merely a room in a house on Capital Hill is not sub-market. I went to Georgetown Law School and lived various places on the hill and that is about what one pays for a room in a house on the hill. How big was the room? Bed and a dresser included? How many people were in the house? 10 in a 5 bedroom house? 12 in a 3 bedroom house with guys sleeping on sofabeds? Did they have to do the dishes on alternate tuesdays and was that a rental reduction and does Rachel think that they should declare the discount as income?
Look, these Congresspeople should never be faulted for trying to find cheap housing in DC or even subsidized housing. They have to maintain families in home districts with their homes there-and have second residences where we, the American People want them to work. We, the American People should provide housing. DC is an extremely expensive rental market. There is such little non-governmental industry here and lack of corporate presence that one of the biggest sectors is real estate and there is no small shortage of sleazy landlords in DC. I like Norm Ornstein's idea that the old Congressional Hotel should be converted into apartments or condos and given to the members for while they are in office. They don't get equity in them-they get the use of them while in office so they don't have to worry about nonsense like Stupak had to deal with -folks accusing them of living too large- in a room on Capital Hill- which by the way, isn't in some parts even safe or fancy. {can you hear me moaning-'Oh for crying out loud!'}
More disturbing is the fact that Rachel here stooped as low as the guys who tried to ruin Daschle over not declaring use of a client's car and Rangel over Dominican Republic rental income. Lower-because it is not tax evasion to get a cheap deal on a room anywhere.
So please say you are sorry people, and move on. Be thankful that there are good public servants like Stupak who is willing to stand on his firm principles- on a point by far the majority of Americans agree should be upheld, and on a point that in fact is the current law regarding the Hyde Amendment.
Pilgrims, Patriots and Prophets Hero of the Week Award goes to: Bart Stupak.
Keith Olberman, by the way, very sorry about your Dad. Thinking of you up there in NYC. Go Big Red.
No comments:
Post a Comment