October 27, 2009

Rep. Barrett voted yes to 2000 abortion ban

Directly contrary to what you will hear from local conservatives:
Dad29:* Does voting FOR partial-birth abortion count? Because [then-Congressman Tom Barrett] did so.

Kilkenny: I did confirm the partial-birth abortion vote Barrett made. That’s pretty damning.
Remarkably, Kilkenny's own link also clearly records Barrett having



That's what's pretty damning.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett hasn't even decided whether to run for Wisconsin governor, and the local wingers are fabricating his record already. You'd think they might at least wait until he does decide.

But evidently they just can't help themselves. Or else they got confused by the presence of two alternate Barretts** in the 106th Congress. Either way, it doesn't look real good for the over-enthusiastic wingers' credibility, does it. Nor, sadly, is it surprising in the least. Hell, even Republican judges do it.

Maybe that's what made it respectable.

h/t WisOpinion.

* A widely trusted source, where "widely" = Patrick McIlheran.
** Our Barrett voted with the "longtime Republican activist."

9 comments:

Cindy Kilkenny said...

Yep, I misread the link. It's called a mistake. I'm still looking into it to make sure the facts will out. There's no reason for Barrett to have that tag if it really doesn't exist. If Dad29 is wrong in his claim, we'll get to the bottom of it.

I like Tom Barrett a whole lot more than I like Dad29, so I'm hoping his record prevails.

illusory tenant said...

We all make 'em. Dad29, however, is a human* red flag.

* Assuming it's not a bot.

Cindy Kilkenny said...

Here's an update:

http://fairlyconservative.com/2009/10/27/the-truth-about-milwaukee-mayor-tom-barretts-congressional-voting-record-on-partial-birth-abortion/

illusory tenant said...

Most likely because that second go-round was a total exercise in unconstitutional futility and a waste of energy in the wake of Stenberg v. Carhart, rather than an expression of endorsement on Barrett's part for "partial-birth abortion." In any event, neither of those votes may be construed as a vote "for" the procedure.

Other Side said...

Daddio is quite human in appearance. The rest is in doubt.

Rick Esenberg said...

Tom

I think you may want to reflect on the implications of this post for your own credibility before you worry about the "overenthusiatic wingers." Dad 29 says that Barrett voted against a ban on partial birth abortion. Kilkenny agrees but links to a page that reflects a vote for such a ban.

Now it turns out that Dad is right. Barrett did vote against a ban. Now you can argue about whether that is a vote for partial birth abortion in that the vote does not mandate the procedure, but that would be rather tendentious, no? If a congress person voted against a ban on dumping arsenic into drinking water, we wouldn't be too upset if someone accused her of voting "for" polluted water.

Or we could say that Dad - or Kilkenny - should have noted that Barrett voted for the ban before he voted against it. In other words, "full disclosure" would require that he be identified not as a consistent opponent of the ban, but as a flip flopper.

Maybe. But then you should have done the same thing rather than imply that accusing Barret of opposing a ban was somehow a figment of the "wingers" imagination.

illusory tenant said...

Dad 29 says that Barrett voted against a ban on partial birth abortion. ... Now it turns out that Dad is right. Barrett did vote against a ban.

Dad didn't say Barrett voted against a ban, Dad said Barrett voted "FOR" partial-birth abortion (which is, incidentally, not a legitimate medical term, outside of right-wing polemics. Even Justice Thomas refers to it parenthetically in his Stenberg dissent, despite that being the language that appeared in the Nebraska statute. Indeed, what's "tendentious" is both Dad's characterization and the very term itself).

You know as well as I do that opposing legislation that seeks to prohibit some activity is not the equivalent to voting in favor of that activity whose prohibition is being sought.

If that were true, then I could tell you — with a straight face — that Justice Scalia is all about burning the American flag.

Especially in the instant case which, as I said, appeared in the aftermath of Stenberg. It's hardly evidence that Barrett is "FOR" partial-birth abortion.

I'll bet you a ginger ale that should the occasion arise, Barrett addresses his '02 vote in terms of the proposal's post-Stenberg futility and maintains his personal opposition to the procedure.

So, yeah, it all comes down to wingers getting excited. Like I said in the first place.

Cindy Kilkenny said...

It was a bit of a roller coaster ride. I honestly didn't know about this issue before yesterday. I know now.

I.T., while your argument may have merit, how do you distill it into a sound bite? Barrett's 50/50 history that's easily documented will carry the debate - if abortion is allowed to be an issue (I think no, abortion's lost it's ability to wedge) - and if Barrett runs.

I'd call our work here productive. Others might be willing to join in if they were comfortable they wouldn't leave with a new label stuck to their backside.

illusory tenant said...

How do you distill it into a sound bite?

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? The sound bite is: ZOMG BARRETT VOTED FOR PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION!!1

I don't believe that's in the least bit truthful, yet the explanation as to why it's not isn't so easily reducible and would likely make most folks' eyes glaze over. That's politics for ya.