Kucinich and Stupak

Both oppose the health care reform bill currently before the House for different reasons but the two do have some have some similarities.

I looked at two groups to see how they ranked the congressmen. Not that much of a difference.

Progressive Punch

Kucinich
lifetime progressive score-88.72
ranking 144/431

Stupak
lifetime progressive score-81.34
ranking 200/431

http://www.progressivepunch.org/

National Journal

Kucinich
composite liberal score-65.2
ranking-160

Stupak
composite liberal score-58.2
ranking-187

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2009voteratings

Stupak voted against NAFTA (Kucinich was elected to Congress in 1996)

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1993/roll575.xml

Both voted against the IWR

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

Both voted in favor of a resolution disapproving of Bush increasing troop strength in Iraq (the surge)

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll099.xml

Stupak voted in favor of Kucinich's bill to remove troops from Afghanistan

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll098.xml

There are other important bills the two voted together on.

when he switched to pro-choice, and that DK comes from a strong Dem district while Stupak comes from a Repub district.

So a case could be made that Stupak is even more principled than DK unless of course you don't like his principles.

Except on things like the public option.

and I don't really care for what reason.

A pro-choice vote is a pro-choice vote no matter the reason just as an anti-HCR vote is an anti-HCR no matter the intention.

It does raise the issue of whether voting against the HCR for the "right" reasons (like Kucinich) vs. the "wrong" reasons (Stupak, blue dogs and republicans) makes a fundamental difference.

Similarly, if Iraqi civilians (or German civilians in WWII) die accidentally as a result of US actions ("collateral damage") is that morally equivalent to car/suicide bombs that attack civilians intentionally. In either case the civilian ends up dead and his family is probably not impressed with the fact that it was "accidental" and that the culprit had the best of intentions or, in the other case, that you killed him to make a political point about occupation.

IMHO, one factors in the "collateral damage" of one's actions and the principles that motivate you and make a decision. Defeating HCR will have collateral damage, at least in the short run. In the longer run, after the 2010 or 2012 elections we might optimistically put together enough support to pass a better form of HCR. If Kucinich and Stupak, for very different reasons of course, are willing to accept "collateral damage" for the sake of their principles that is their decision to make. And they will live with the consequences - good or bad - of their actions, just like a soldier in Iraq (or Germany in WWII).

without looking at his overall voting record.

If he had his way, Stupak would return women to the days of dangerous back-room and self-botched abortions.

Where is your evidence that is what Stupak actually wants?

Kucinich

2009-12
Lifetime-9.77

Stupak

2009-16
Lifetime-21.1

http://67.20.95.56/ratings/ratingsarchive/2009/House%20Ratings.htm

Just thought it'd be interesting to find out how a conservative organization rates the two. Pretty darn low!