Two retirements
The first is no surprise at all: Supreme Court Justice Stevens, who is nearly ninety, and as a liberal wanted to wait to retire until he knew another liberal would be appointed to fill his place. Now he can do just that. And if anyone thinks such political considerations don’t play a huge part in the timing of such things, he/she is profoundly and hopelessly naive.
The second is none other than Bart Stupak, Congressman from Michigan who kept a fairly low national profile in his eighteen years in the House—until recently, that is. His swan song contained the following whopper:
Stupak told The Associated Press that attacks on him for his role in the abortion debate did not influence his decision and he could win re-election if he tried.
Of course. And then:
Stupak told the AP he wants to spend more time with his family and start a new career after nine terms in Congress.
I wonder what that “new career” will be. What was he promise—first for his cooperation, and then for this valiant falling on his sword to allow another more viable Democratic candidate to enter the arena?
He definitely won’t be getting a job in the private sector. No self respecting employer would hire him and no real church will either.
Representative Stupak must have to go through a long list of rationalizations just to be able to get out of bed in the morning.
It’s the political equivalent of Suicide Bombing.
Stupak, probably, is not the worst Congressman in D.C. However, I’m so sick of Stupak going before cameras and acting like a noble martyr; like a man of principle. When the moment for principled martyrdom arrived, Bart Stupak melted like ice cream on a hot day. Soft serve. Which was barely frozen in the first place. Stupak is a now a dried up stain on the sidewalk.
And, Neo, you called yourself naive! (in the preceding post)
With all my mistrust of politicians it didn’t crossed my mind that Stupak is getting something for his service; he looked as a man taken by con-artists to me. You’re much more perceptive.
Well, I guess, it’s your job description…
Notice that he has done no wrong and is retiring as a victim, therefore, as given to us by the 8th column, a victim has no responsibility towards an outcome…
same with Obama and nukes.
he is not responsible for what happens, how can a victim be responsible? cant blame the victim…
Hot Air has a link to a tweet from Laura Ingrham whose sources tell her Barney Frank also plans to retire.
Democrats have wanted to pass a healthcare law for a hundred years, and now that they’ve done so, prominent Democrats are retiring? If they really believed people thought the legislation is good for the country, wouldn’t they easily win re-election? And wouldn’t they want to watch it be implemented in all its glory?
Scott: Barney Frank can now retire because his work (read: damage) is done, and he can rest on his laurels in some cushy position—vacating his seat for some Democratic successor to occupy, one who seems untainted. Hope the people in District 4 (Barney’s) don’t fall for it—but it includes Newton, whose residents probably will.
I’m not certain that report is correct, however. Frank has a big ego. But he might retire if polling indicates he will lose.
The timing of Stevens retirement to enable Obama to replace him with a liberal demonstrates what a two faced creep Souter was. If he was proud of his liberal leanings he would have made them known to Bush I and not have been nominated. So, he snuck into the office as a purported conservative without much of a record to delay his confirmation. And, he retired at a time when a “wise latina” liberal could replace him on the court. He was a nonentity before he was appointed, a relatively poor justice on the Court (he will be remembered for the Kelo decision), and has already ridden into obscurity. In retrospect, it was like he crawled out from under a rock, spent some time on the Supreme Court as a nebish, and crawled back under the rock. I wonder how he was treated by the other members of the Court.
Washington (UPI) – Administration sources late Friday announced the nomination of Bart Stupak as Ambassador to the strategically vital country of Monaco.
“Monaco plays a key role in our foreign policy, and Bart Stupak is just the man to forge closer links with the restive natives on the topless beaches of the Riviera,” President Obama intoned.
The republicans already drew a line in the sand and said they’d fight any patronage appointments…
Give me a Stevens over a Stupak anyday, although Stevens is, by far, the greater tragedy. Stevens was and still is a man of integrity in the sense that his “ship is whole.” There is no dishonesty or lack of authenticity with Stevens, but that is likely due to the formation of his character in an earlier age, and thus, the greater tragedy evidenced by Steven’s profession of admiration for Obama. How could a WWII vet known for his attention to facts come to such an awful conclusion? Maybe it was the company he kept.
I saw a short clip of an interview with Stupak. In it, he did not blink at all.
The system is self-bribing. Stupak gets to keep his campaign war chest, about $275,000.