The monumental 24-hour flip-flop of the Capuano campaign on whether the Stupak-Pitts amendment is, or is not, a health care deal-breaker has to call into question the candidate’s ability to run an effective campaign and, by extension, his ability to be an effective Senator.
A campaign press release I received yesterday by email at 3:23 p.m.:
“When Martha Coakley said she would have voted against health care reform that meant that she opposes bringing health care to 36 million more Americans, that she doesn’t want to prevent insurance companies from discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions, and that, despite her TV commercial saying the opposite, Martha Coakley doesn’t support the bill that created a strong public option.”
And then, Matt Viser today in the Globe, with David (who helped break this story) offering color commentary and many dozens of excellent comments:
“If the bill comes back the same way as it left the House, I would vote against it,” Capuano said in an interview. “I am a prochoice person, and I do believe this is [necessary] to provide health care for everyone.”
Capuano could have argued either way on the merits — an excellent debate — but to lambaste one’s opponent for a position on a central issue that one then adopts oneself within 24 hours smacks of desperation, incompetence, or both, sad to say (because Capuano has many good qualities). Score a big political point for the Coakley campaign (or, as esteemed commenter jconway suggests in the comments, Khazei … or Pagliuca … or, just about anyone other than Capuano).