Not all of them, mind you. But, at least, he’s accused the U.S. bishops and the National Right to Life Committee of hypocrisy.

According to The Daily Caller:

“The [National] Right to Life and the bishops, in 2007 when George Bush signed the executive order on embryonic stem cell research, they all applauded the executive order,” Stupak said in an interview with The Daily Caller.

“The Democratic Congress passed [a bill] saying we’ll do embryonic stem cell research. Bush vetoed it in 2007. That same day he issued an executive order saying we will not do it, and all these groups applauded that he protected life,” Stupak said.

“So now President Obama’s going to sign an executive order protecting life and everyone’s condemning it. The hypocrisy is great,” he said.

To my mind, the addle-headedness of his comments is great.

President Bush, for all his flaws, vetoed a Bad Bill and then issued an executive order to further protect unborn life.

What Stupak did was vote for a Bad Bill with only a hope that the next pro-abort president (or even Obama himself, or the courts) won’t void the executive order he got in exchange for his vote.

Whatever else, Mr. Stupak does not seem gifted in finding good analogies to back up his charges of hypocrisy.

But perhaps he’s just expressing things badly (and offensively).

He goes on to suggest that had he not accepted the offer of the executive order that Mrs. Pelosi would have had the votes for the Bad Bill anyway, and it would have been passed without the executive order to blunt its effects on the unborn.

If so, his flippage on the issue would have been reasonable and praiseworthy (though his accusations of hypocrisy would not).

But is he right?

The bill passed with three votes to spare, 219-to-212.

But the Stupak gang provided more than four votes. Had they not voted for the Bad Bill, on its face it would not have passed.

Could Pelosi have had enough representatives who voted “no” who would have voted “yes” if Stupak hadn’t cut his deal to pass the Bad Bill anyway?

It’s possible, but it doesn’t strike me as plausible (else why make the deal with Stupak’s group?).

On the other hand, Pelosi could have just lied to Stupak about how many votes she had, and Stupak may have been stupid enough to believe her.

The Daily Caller is also running a piece titled Bart Stupak is either not very smart or he’s not very honest.

These certainly seem reasonable hypotheses, particularly given this video from November 2009 (CHT: Fr. Z):

So what do you think? Is Stupak’s reasoning good, bad, both? And what do you make of his charges of hypocrisy?


Just who is the hypocrite, now?