Further evidencing the fact that so-called "pro-life" conservatives would more accurately be labeled "pro-birth" comes this study in contradiction from soon-to-be former Senator Roger Wicker. It boggles the mind (this one, at least) how his brain - and others like it - doesn't simply explode from the opposing forces of his "convictions." Never mind how his conscience doesn't leave him crumbling and weeping on the bathroom floor.
Spurred on by the CM posts listed earlier, I started poking around at OnTheIssues, a great resource for finding out where politicians stand...well...on the issues, as evidenced by their votes and actions, rather than their campaign rhetoric. Anyway, lo and behold, the first thing about Wicker that jumps out at me was that he "Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)."
Not all that surprising for a man who just introduced the Life at Conception Act into the Senate, which would effectively repeal Roe v. Wade at the congressional level. Wicker's facing a potential defeat this November, and by introducing this piece of legislation (which has no chance of passage), he's going to the old Republican well, looking for red meat to toss into the pit.
The strategy is a simple one: divide the electorate along something, anything, other than their own best interests. After all, if the people vote on kitchen table, pocketbook and real-world impact issues, the Republicans lose. Hugely. And they know it. So they move to divide and conquer by the slimmest majority. Of course, that won't work this year, but they really have nothing else to run on.
So anyway, after seeing this, I thought well, at least he's voting to expand SCHIP, right? I mean, who could be against providing healthcare to some 6.6 million children who would otherwise not be able to afford it? And surely, if he's looking to expand the program to cover the unborn in addition to the many living, breathing children who need to see doctors in the here and now, he understands the importance of funding that vision. Right?
Wrong. While Wicker is more than happy to expand the program to include some untold number of unborn children (within the same funding), when presented with the opportunity to add an additional 2 to 4 million children to the program - children who need healthcare this very day - he voted no. In lockstep with his party and his president and against the interests of his constituents (see yesterday's post on Mississippi's #1 ranking in underweight babies and impoverished children).
So yes, expand the program to cover the unborn, but no, don't let it cover the living.
Again, that's not pro-life, just pro-birth.
A couple of other choice findings:
Spurred on by the CM posts listed earlier, I started poking around at OnTheIssues, a great resource for finding out where politicians stand...well...on the issues, as evidenced by their votes and actions, rather than their campaign rhetoric. Anyway, lo and behold, the first thing about Wicker that jumps out at me was that he "Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)."
Not all that surprising for a man who just introduced the Life at Conception Act into the Senate, which would effectively repeal Roe v. Wade at the congressional level. Wicker's facing a potential defeat this November, and by introducing this piece of legislation (which has no chance of passage), he's going to the old Republican well, looking for red meat to toss into the pit.
The strategy is a simple one: divide the electorate along something, anything, other than their own best interests. After all, if the people vote on kitchen table, pocketbook and real-world impact issues, the Republicans lose. Hugely. And they know it. So they move to divide and conquer by the slimmest majority. Of course, that won't work this year, but they really have nothing else to run on.
So anyway, after seeing this, I thought well, at least he's voting to expand SCHIP, right? I mean, who could be against providing healthcare to some 6.6 million children who would otherwise not be able to afford it? And surely, if he's looking to expand the program to cover the unborn in addition to the many living, breathing children who need to see doctors in the here and now, he understands the importance of funding that vision. Right?
Wrong. While Wicker is more than happy to expand the program to include some untold number of unborn children (within the same funding), when presented with the opportunity to add an additional 2 to 4 million children to the program - children who need healthcare this very day - he voted no. In lockstep with his party and his president and against the interests of his constituents (see yesterday's post on Mississippi's #1 ranking in underweight babies and impoverished children).
So yes, expand the program to cover the unborn, but no, don't let it cover the living.
Again, that's not pro-life, just pro-birth.
A couple of other choice findings:
- Voted NO on regulating the subprime mortgage industry. (Nov 2007)
- Voted YES on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)
- Voted NO on additional $10.2B for federal education & HHS projects. (Nov 2007)
- Voted NO on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007)
- Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
- Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)
- Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)
- Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007)
- Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)
- Voted NO on increasing tax rate for people earning over $1 million. (Mar 2008)
- Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
- Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
Posts
0 comments: to “ More on Wicker ”
Post a Comment