Can Republican Leaders Trust Obama’s Charm Offensive?
AP/Fox News
As budget battles resume, Obama plans three visits to Capitol Hillfollowing a week of dinner invites to GOP lawmakers — but party leadersexpress cautious optimism about president’s sincerity.
That’s the headline and lead from FOX NEWS online.
“Cautious optimism” about Barack Obama’s sincerity! Now why would anyone be cautious about that? Perhaps we could ask Bart Stupak.
Remember Bart Stupak? He was the leader of a group of pro-life “Blue Dog Democrats” in the Democrat dominated House of Representatives in 2010. He thought he could trust the word and “sincerity” of Barack Obama. And, as a consequence, ol’ Bart’s last name has become a verb (at least here at Veritas) to describe what often happens to anyone who actually believes a word that Barack Obama utters.
The occasion on which the first known case of one being “Stupak’d” was in March, 2010. In order to pass the House, ObamaCare needed the support of Stupak and his group of pro-life congressmen. Stupak was demanding that an amendment to the “Affordable Health Care” bill be included to ensure that the individual mandate for insurance coverage didn’t result in public funding for abortions . After many negotiations with the administration, and a lot of pressure from the pro-abortion Democrats in the House, Stupak signed off on a deal which included an Executive Order Obama would issue which essentially restated the language of Stupak’s amendment.
“All the safeguards we were looking for, the principle we fought for all these months, will be enforced through this Executive Order”, Stupak said at a press conference. “It’s a good deal”.
With that, most of his Blue Dog colleagues supported the ObamaCare legislation, and the rest is history.
That was in March 2010.
Here is former congressman Stupak in a forum at the Democratic convention in September 2012:
“I am perplexed and disappointed that, having negotiated the Executive Order (EO) with the President, not only does the HHS mandate violate the EO, but it also violates statutory law.”
As reported in the Politics Digest newsletter,, Stupak admitted that the White House had walked away from the compromise it had struck with him on the abortion language in ObamaCare.
So the first victim of “Stupaking” is ‘perplexed and disappointed”. Well, he may be the first, but he sure isn’t the only or the last.
Americans are reminded every day of good ol’ trusting Bart…as
in Boehner got “stupak’d” when he thought a Grand Bargain with Obama
was possible.
Or, as in “the American people got stupak’d when Obama told them his
“Affordable Care Health Program” was “affordable”.
They were “stupak’d” again when he said he would cut the deficit in half
by the end of his first term.
Obama was “stupaking” voters even before he became president. In June, 2008, Barack Obama opted out of public financing for the presidential campaign after he had made a big deal about how he would take the grant if the GOP candidate agreed to do the same. Even his liberal supporters felt “Stupak’d” on that one even though the term had not yet been invented.
Many voters were “stupak’d” when Obama “evolved into a pro gay marriage advocate after campaigning as an opponent of it.
How many Americans believed His Greatness when he pledged to have the most transparent administration in history. Anybody feel “stupak’d” when “fast and Furious” comes up in conversation? Or, how about “Benghazi”?
Maybe Republicans should be “cautious” about Obama’s sincerity. We see no reason they should be optimistic though. Ask Bart Stupak. He’s probably still “perplexed and disappointed”.
Stupak’d, v., see conned, misled, snookered, lied to, screwed, obamaized (as in, “I trusted Obama and I got Obamaized)
DLH
