UPDATE: Mike Capuano has now said that he agrees with Martha Coakley that if the final bill still has Stupak-Pitts or something like it, he will vote “no.” Fascinating. So the candidate count is two (Coakley and Capuano) who would vote “no,” and two (Khazei and Pagliuca) who would vote “yes,” if the final bill restricts abortion funding.
Amazing how things can change so quickly. For weeks and weeks now, Democratic primary voters have assumed that, for the most part, all four candidates would vote pretty much the same way on all the major issues, and were looking for other ways of making their decision. Sure, there were a few differences around the edges, but nothing really big. No game-changers; no deal-breakers.
Well, we’ve got a potential game-changing deal-breaker now. Martha Coakley said this morning on WBUR (at 1:20) that if the final health care bill still contains restrictive language on abortion funding like the Stupak-Pitts amendment, she would vote “no” in the Senate, expanding on her comments from yesterday regarding the vote in the House.
In contrast, Alan Khazei and Steve Pagliuca have both said (in statements to BMG) that, in those same circumstances, they would vote “yes.” And Mike Capuano, somewhat curiously given how hard he is trying to hammer Coakley on this, is being cagey about that question. Today’s Globe reports, right after recounting Capuano’s deriding of Coakley’s position on the House vote:
A spokeswoman for Capuano, however, declined later to say whether he would definitely vote for the final bill if it includes the abortion provision.
I’ve asked the Capuano campaign that question; no response so far. Apparently the Globe couldn’t get an answer either. So, um, come on, Mike. SEE UPDATE ABOVE for Capuano’s position.
I understand if you are working a deal you don’t show your hand early. But guess what, we are not under a normal circumstance. You are running for Senate and it’s a major issue. People are voting in 4 weeks.
in the house being led by Rep. Diana DeGette that threatens a NO vote on HCR legislation coming out of conference with anti-abortion terms, as opposed to the status quo on abortion rights ?
From today’s Globe:
<
p>
<
p>I haven’t seen the letter – if anyone sees it, please post it here.
They apparently have about 40 signatures so far and are trying to get more before they send it to Pelosi. Text:
<
p>
Is there a list of who signed on so far?
<
p>Plus how do the reconcile this letter with their initial vote of the bill. I would like to see a list and how they voted.
<
p>How did DeGette vote?
is here. DeGette voted yes. I think everyone who signs the letter is a “yes” vote in the House, but who is saying that they will vote “no” on final passage of the conference committee report unless Stupak-Pitts comes out.
A group of 40 Representatives voted in favor of a health care bill out of the house that included the Stupak-Pitts amendment. These same Representatives now have said they will vote against the same bill they passed a few days earlier unless the amendment is removed. But they chose not to do so in the house and passed it.
<
p>Interesting. I am all for putting as much pressure as possible in the Senate since it seems like we lost in the house, I guess the votes weren’t there without the amendment.
<
p>But why would this letter give anyone any confidence on how they would vote out of conference?
I’m going to assume all 40 of these Reps voted against adding the Stupak-Pitts language.
<
p>Given that assumption, their actions make perfect sense to me. They voted to pass the bill to send it to the Senate. They know the bill goes through the conferencing process, and that there is a high probability (but not certainty) that the Stupak-Pitts language will get stripped in conference.
<
p>Furthermore, since Stupak-Pitts passed with flying colors, it is very unlikely that a subsequent amendment removing Stupak-Pitts would pass.
<
p>Given this process, which makes more sense if you are one of these 40?
<
p>a) You vote down the bill, killing healthcare reform completely.
b) You approve the bill, knowing it will go through conference and you will have a second chance to kill it if Stupak-Pitts is still in it.
<
p>I vote (b). At this stage in the game, (a) is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Better to show you will stick together with the other 39 and kill the bill if Stupak-Pitts is still in it after conference.
<
p>NB: This post is not meant to imply endorsement of their actions, Stupak-Pitts or the reform bill as a whole. (Nor does is caveat meant to imply that I don’t endorse any of these things.) I’m just explaining some basic political strategy.
how do they vote out of committee with the amendment in tact?
<
p>The letter doesn’t hold any kind of significance to me, they already voted to pass it.
in the Senate bill has to be different than the language in the house bill, and furthermore it must be closer to enforcing Hyde Amendment status quo as opposed to Stupak. Each chamber passes it’s own bill and conference merges them.
and my original question, what credibility does the letter really offer. It consist of Reps who voted passage including the Stupak amendment. I fully understand the process, Capuano made that clear to everyone over the past couple of days.
<
p>So they passed it hoping the Senate can modify to instead have the Capps amendment be used instead.
<
p>Will Niki Tsongas for example kill the health care reform bill, and take away health coverage for 36 million Americans? Or did their initial vote to pass with Stupak give us a better sense of what will happen.
…would you support a health care bill with the Stupak amendment?
<
p>And the answer to your question/point is obvious…these 40 people voted for the health care version w/Stupak for the same reason Cap did, to move along the process and hope for another chance at killing Stupak. If Stupak’s language still exists after conference, they’ll vote to defeat health care, in order to protect a woman’s right to choose. What is so hard to understand about that?
No more or less credibility than any other time a politician stands up and says “If X is in this bill, I will vote Nay.” I personally attach more credibility to the fact that there are 40 of them. Chances are good that at least 30 of them will follow through on the threat.
This letter is specific in noting that (empasis mine):
<
p>
<
p>The group and letter want an abortion neutral health care bill. They have noted that they support Capps Amendment, that applies the Hyde amendment which restricts federal funding of abortions within the appropriations bill is carried into the health care reform bill.
<
p>Which leads to Capuano’s position that we are working on a health care bill not an abortion bill. Do we fight for abortion rights, yes. But we still need to pass health care reform.
<
p>Coakley’s position is full federal funding.
Coakley’s position is also not a status quo position but would actually eliminate the Hyde Amendment. To me it seems that Coakley cares more about symbolic resolutions on abortion and catering to her feminist base than about healthcare reform. I want the government to provide for my healthcare and I am someone who will never be eligible for an abortion, why do I and 36 other Americans get thrown under the bus for the small minority of women who seek abortions and cannot afford them? Especially considering there is no way to pass healthcare reform while also providing for those women as the previous vote demonstrates. To me this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater and it really makes me doubt Coakley’s ability to make smart decisions as a Senator.
The GOP will be able to remind all the religious people and other pro-lifers that the pro-choice aspect of the Democratic platform (which appears to go beyond a concern just for the continued legality of the procedure, but which necessitates that abortion also be “affordable” for all and/or completely covered by insurance) is not just one issue, but is perhaps the most important issue to many House and Senate Democrats, and is more important than whatever other gains to the poor and middle classes might have resulted from health care reform with a public option. As someone said before, there must be nonprofits that provide assistance for abortions in the case of extreme indigence? How much does the average abortion cost, anyway? Isn’t it at all possible to pay the bill for one in installments, after the fact? Perhaps all federally-funded insurance companies should be required to pay for the birth control pill and/or a lifetime supply of spermicidal condoms- I would think that there must be a palatable compromise somewhere here.
but I cant find it in her Newsroom on http://www.louise.house.gov
http://www.boston.com/news/loc…
<
p>In shift, Capuano says he might vote against health bill
<
p>My favorite comment to Globe so far:
“rondofan79 wrote:
Wow, epic, epic fail from Capuano, on three fronts:
<
p>1. Completely blowing his one chance to get into the race;
<
p>2. Executing the technically demanding triple flip-flop (voting against, then for, then against); and
<
p>3. Completely undercutting his own campaign.
<
p>I bet that manna from heaven tastes like a turd sandwich right about now…”
Capuano is trying to find any way to move health care reform forward — give the Senate and conference a chance. Coakley seems to be looking for ways to spike it.
I was ready to vote for Coakley and know I am heaving serious second thoughts. We need to be reasonable or we become just as obstructionist as those on the right.
Martha was right all along and now Capuano agrees with her.
Keeping in the most regressive roadblock to women’s choice in decades and letting a bill pass with it without a fight wasn’t a very principled nor clever maneuver.
We need a strong, courageous Senator,not one with his finger in the wind looking to take the right position.
<
p>Martha was always reasonable. Her approach was that if we didn’t make this a middle of the night emergency vote and took some more time to negotiate we might have come up with a bill that was better written, more transparent and much less threatening to the most vulnerable of all Americans, poor women.
Received via eamil –
<
p>Statement from Corey Welford, spokesperson for Martha Coakley’s campaign, on Congressman Mike Capuano’s position that he will not vote for final health care legislation if it includes the Stupak/Pitts amendment. The provision would further restrict women’s access to reproductive health care.
<
p>
Probably won’t change a lot of minds among motivated voters. People who want a lunch bucket, focus on the economy progressive Democrat will stick with Mike, people who want more of a centrist candidate will stick with Coakley. Life goes on, IMO.
Capuano voted no on the Stupak anti-abortion Amendment. Coakley would have too.
<
p>Capuano voted YES on HR 3962 with Stupak anti-abortion Amendment to move the bill forward.
Coakley said she would have voted NO on HR 3962 with Stupak anti-abortion Amendment.
<
p>Capuano says he would not vote for the final bill if it still had anti-abortion language.
Coakley has the same position.
<
p>Martha was always reasonable… except for taking the position of a NO vote HR 3962 in the house.
<
p>We need a strong, courageous Senator, not a career litigator with less than three years experience in state wide office.
Coakley outmaneuvered Capuano, pure and simple.
<
p>This is about the election, not the actual bill. She’s a candidate, not a senator. Just like Candidate Obama can be against the war and then push for an increase in troops in Afghanistan and not face a revolt from the vast majority of the Democratic base, Coakley will be able to back pedal this move if she’s actually elected and it’s actually the thing that will stop health care reform.
<
p>All the Robert’s Rules of order BS that folks keep on focusing on doesn’t matter, Coakley isn’t going to be the person to sink health care reform, but she is the person who forced her only serious challenger switch from ridiculing her to emulating her.
<
p>She’s staked out a position to the left of her lefty opponent and she’s helped push the debate on the senate health care bill to really focus on protecting abortion rights, exactly where it needs to be.
<
p>We need a smart, dynamic candidate who knows how to win elections and sway public opinion. At this point, I’d say 2 points for Coakley, 0 for Capuano.
becuase all of the other Coakley supporters are saying this is about policy.
But seriously, this is the best campaign issue, because it’s about policy and the campaign. Coakley positions herself as a serious supporter or abortion rights and makes Capuano look foolish.
<
p>The impetus for my earlier subject line wasn’t your comments, actually, you’re one of the few from the earlier diary who’s kept on commenting, and I respect you for that. Many, however, who were calling Coakley naive and making fun of her inability to understand how Congress actually works, are notably silent on this issue as their candidates has to backpedal.
<
p>In my very unscientific poll of four folks I ran into in the last few hours, every one seems to think Coakley is right on this and Capuano isn’t. Pretty much everyone is a super-lefty who should be considered a likely Capuano supporter, so like I said, Coakley wins the day…
Quite the opposite.
<
p>Capuano is unwilling to accept a Stupak Amendment in the final bill.
Coakley declared she was unwilling to accept it at any stage, and let the process play out.
<
p>Huge difference.
only we had a few courageous congress members who would have put up a fight. Not many seemed to know what they were voting for, even the next day. This is a sorry state to find ourselves with a democratic congress and President. On a bill that effects such a large part of our economy and is so important to so many American does anyone know why they had this emergency, middle of the night deadline? What happened to the promised transparency? Martha Coakley’s belief was that if we continued to negotiate we could get back to the not very good but at least not incredibly regressive, Hyde amendment. That was the promise-it didn’t sit well with many of us but it was a compromise we had to make. Many don’t understand how extreme this amendment is-far out of bounds and totally unacceptable.
and it is a huge difference.
…put not in the rest of the world.
…instead of thinking it was a “manna from heaven”. With about 55% of the Dem primary voters being women, this issue is in no way some kind of “slam dunk” for Cap and the boys.
especially now that Coakley has cover from pro-choicers in Congress who are refusing in significant numbers to commit to vote for final passage unless Stupak-Pitts comes out — see letter posted upthread.
Listening to BUR on the way to work it sounded like Capuano really lost control of the message already.
the Republicans win.
the abortion amendment, or without it. It’s a perfect storm.
The Republicans win.
<
p>I’m not surprised Capuano is reluctant to make a statement, he is probably being bombarded with calls and emails to confirm that he will vote “no” if the Senate version contains this amendment. Maybe it’s taking him some time to ponder the future of our nation without health care reform. Maybe he feels sick to his stomach that this one amendment has changed everything. Maybe he is taking the time to consider that this could very well be the most important vote of his life, not only for him but for the nation.
<
p>It’s hard to let go of overall health care reform because of this one amendment. I agree that this amendment is a slap in the face to women’s rights, but it can be overcome at later date.
<
p>I think they should pass the bill with this amendment (if that’s what it takes)and then find ways to get around it. States can provide coverage for abortion, as well as coverage for contraception.
<
p>
If the Senate bill has language that enforces the Hyde Amendment but does not go beyond it, it would allow plans in the exchange, both public and private plans, to offer abortion coverage. People who receive government assistance in paying for their health insurance coverage could could also receive abortion services if they renumerated the government.
<
p>Then the issue would be put to the conference to resolve the difference between the house and senate bill. In this process the democrats are in the drivers seat. Status quo on the Hyde Amendment is the path to victory.
And IF Stupak’s language is still attached…where do you stand on that?
If you don’t, you don’t have a basis for knowing if it’s a big “if” or little “if”.
Coakley has stated repeatedly that she opposes the Hyde Amendment and supports full federal funding for abortion. This means that even that moderate concession to the pro-chocie lobby isn’t good enough for her and the few thousand women that seek abortions every year but can’t afford them and are not covered by health insurance or state medicaid plans are more important than the 36 million without healthcare insurance in her calculus. This is either political pandering at its worst or Coakely seriously believes what she is saying-either way it really reduces her credibility as an effective Senator in my view. This is a compromise worth making.
<
p>What would Ted Kennedy do? He’d have voted for health care reform with the abortion provision, he would have wanted his legacy passed no matter what obstacles were thrown in its path.
The initial question was whether or not Coakley would have voted for the House bill, given that the Senate and conference work was still ahead. I have not had much to complain about regarding Coakley until now. One has to look at the possible outcomes of one’s choice. Voting no on the House bill would have derailed health care reform if that vote was needed for passage. A yes vote, as explained in multiple other comments, allows for a process where the Stupak amendment might not make it into the conference report. That bit of judgment by Coakley now has me rethinking my #2 choice.
<
p>No one knows yet what the final Senate bill will look like, much less the conference report. But one big difference is that there are many fewer potential outcomes when the Senate vote is taken. If it contains the Stupak amendment (or something similar), removing it in conference would appear to be that much more difficult.
<
p>Asking now, in this context, how one will vote either on the Senate version or the conference version will only reveal if this particular provision is a deal-breaker. I’d really like any Senator or Congressperson to look at the whole bill and make their decision that way. If it’s a matter of providing health coverage to a number of women who do not now have it but with the abortion restrictions, well that would be a tough choice for me to make and I couldn’t really say what I’d do. But I’d want to leave my options open and not pin myself into a corner.
<
p>That said, and I know this sounds contradictory, I’m glad that the DeGette letter is getting signers. It’s a strategy that may result in the whole point being moot (i.e., if the final versions do not have the Stupak provision, all the better).
One of the two senators identified as working on the abortion rights issue in the Senate said,
<
p>
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar…
“Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other. The term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise.link“
<
p>
<
p>In the interest of disclosure, I am a Roman Catholic raised in the Commonwealth who served as an alter boy.
The Bishops have every right to speak out and be a prophetic voice against what they see as an injustice. After all my denomination, the United Church of Christ, is on record supporting health care for all and I wish we hard heard that voice more loudly. Also, three prominent advocates for civil rights, Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton, all bear the title of “Reverend”.
Here is the reaction to passage of the bill from Rev. Geoffrey Black, UCC General Minister and President. The article includes a link to the resolution adopted by General Synod in support of single-payer.
of our former Representative Fr. Robert Drinan, S.J. The Bishops have every right to speak, but Drinan was forced to leave politics because of his liberal positions.
The UCC would never make one choose between public life and the church. That’s part of what I like about it.
You can disagree with the Bishops stance on abortion, in full disclosure I too am a Roman Catholic and a lector, and I also honor my Church’s positions on all life questions. The Bishops have been calling for universal healthcare since the 1960s, the Papacy has been calling for it in some form or another since the 1890s, this is definitely a Catholic issue. But to the Bishops, and to most Catholics, universal healthcare that funds abortion is a non-starter-not because we are forcing our beliefs upon others but because we don’t want taxpayer dollars funding what we believe is the immoral destruction of human life. Silencing religious figures for their political views, in my view, is a violation of freedom of speech and freedom of religion and thus a violation of church and state separation. They have every right to advocate and you have every right to advocate another way.
not the Stupak amendment to guide the compromise and yet neither Stupak not the Catholic Bishops will relent, inspite of the the fact they acknowledge they got more than they expected. I’m with Patrick Kennedy on this. Catholic bishops are being divisive.
I think the RCC is wrong on this one, in the following sense:
<
p>It seems that, given the choice between:
(a) covering another 36ish million Americans, including maintaining the Hyde amendment which doesn’t directly pay for abortions but does allow people to have insurance which would cover abortions, and
(b) those 36ish million Americans not having sufficient access to holistic health care at all
<
p>The bishops are pushing for (b), as if not allowing access to abortions for roughly 9 million women*, most of whom will never have an abortion, is more important than making sure that the 36 million have access to health care.
<
p>
<
p>I get that they see universal health care as a good and abortions as a bad and that, if they had their druthers, they’d have universal health care with no funding for abortions. But, given the choice of no health care at all or health care that maintains the status quo w.r.t. abortions and federal funds, I think the bishops are myopically focusing on fetuses and sentencing many who are post-birth to an earlier death. It just doesn’t seem to jibe with our principles.
<
p>
<
p> * roughly half of women are in the right agespan to have an abortion, and women are roughly half of the uninsured
Both “groups” seem willing to sacrifice health reform over the abortion issue. It’s not like either amendment would fundamentally alter the legal status of abortions, somehow overturning, “expanding”, or modifying Roe v. Wade, right?
I’m estimating a large number of voters are not in favor of Martha’s militant stand on female superiority.
I’m sorry for being coarse here, but but I don’t feel like paying for every bimbo’s after-the-fact birth control. I fully support choice with circumstances.
If a right-to-life voter was thinking of voting for her, they’re not going to now.
…before this vote. I guess she just lost them.
Do you honestly believe that choosing to have an abortion is such an easy decision that women use it instead of birth control? If so, you know nothing about it.
It seems to me that you enjoy it.
<
p>TedF
Take Mr. XI’s comment on Tim Cahill, for example.
<
p>
<
p>I’m no fan of Mr. Cahill, but to deride him by accusing him of dressing as a woman is offensive on many, many levels.
I wouldn’t have have said it.
I wouldn’t have have said it.
maybe we can make it a law that men should pay for all abortions. I’ll bet the sale of condoms would sky rocket. Unintended pregnancies would diminish so much that abortion would barely be necessary.
<
p>Unintended pregnancies are caused by men. Every sexually active man should have condoms on his person. So I say let’s also add an amendment that since there would be no unintended pregnacies without men, men should pay for abortions, out of pocket. Problem solved.
Every man needs a female partner in making babies though. It takes two to tango.I am all for safe sex.
a fully willing partner. I’m not suggesting that a majority of unwanted pregnancies came about due to sexual assault, but it is more than zero. Furthermore, there are far too many women who are in relationships where pregnancy is an artifact of a domineering man — the sex is consensual, but only as part of a relationship in which the woman feels trapped in a bad place and is merely trying to minimize harm for herself and perhaps her other children.
<
p>
<
p>The number of instances where a man uses force — physical or otherwise, actual or threatened — to impregnate a woman is orders of magnitude more often than the number of instances where a woman uses force on a man. It takes two to tango, but the woman can’t always refuse the dance.
I support choice with circumstances. Your examples are what I am referring to.
but even if it doesn’t go so far as to be abusive demands for sex, the politics of sex in relationships can often lead to bad decision making. I think it’s fair to say that it is often not the woman who makes the decision not to use protection.
<
p>I think that accountability for unintended pregnancies belongs to both parties, not just women, which is what billxi obviously believes.
and it’s effect on The Exchange and Private Insurance.
<
p>
http://www.womenforcoakley.com…
<
p>”Biggest Abortion Restriction in a Generation: Backward, Onerous, Infuriating
by mass4martha
<
p>MSNBC Host Rachel Maddow as a guest on Meet the Press:
<
p>It’s the biggest restriction on abortion access in this country in a generation.”
<
p>Reading the whole piece you can see why Martha Coakley is totally right on this.
Seems the pro-choice caucus got punked the night of the vote. Everything was done so quickly and not many had a chance to read the amendment or the bill before they voted. Martha Coakley has been very clear from the start. She was on Hardball her first day of her campaign and said clearly that she could not support a health reform bill unless it protects a women’s right to choose, she furthered that she thinks the Hyde amendment should be rewritten to reflect the law.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
This quote from your text is what I believe her position to be:
<
p>
<
p>Full funding of abortion in the public option.
“Full [Federal] funding of abortion in the public option [and the Federal exchange offered private plans],” whereas the pro-choice caucus wants Hyde Amendment consistent language that would not allow for Federal funding of abortions but that would not exclude these plans from offering abortion coverage just the Federal funds to pay for it.
And certainly all of the pro-choice people i know would also like to see Hyde rewritten to reflect the present law- I know Martha understands that there are limits and she would no doubt have to compromise but the Stupak amendment was so egregiously unfair and just too many steps in the wrong direction. She knew, as did those in congress who are now regretful and trying to hold it up in conference, that we cannot go back any further without losing ground in the entire battle. Since this has been her stated position over and over from the start of the campaign, I think her principled stance is that we could have worked a bit harder, even if it meant more time, to have gotten at least a break even Hyde version. More time might have also offered the promised transparency and an overall better bill. Not that anyone really knows exactly what they voted on!
<
p>
<
p>Could you provide any quotes or other evidence that show that anyone who voted for the bill now regrets their vote?
<
p>I think they all knew what they were doing.
http://politics.theatlantic.co…
<
p>”In a sense, the rapidity with which the Democratic leadership caved tells us two things about the larger abortion debate: it is increasingly being fought on a territory that is hospitable to pro-lifers — and — that the Democratic leadership believes that it can essentially take the support of women’s rights activists for granted. The balance was this: do we lose X number of votes because we don’t include the language?
<
p>In a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi today, 40 House pro-choicers insisted they would not support the product of the House and Senate conference if it included the Stupak language, calling it “an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women’s ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled.. . .Some Democrats believe that the Stupak language can be repealed at a later date — but that’s hard to imagine in the current political atmosphere.”
No one said they regretted their action, as you claimed. They understand the sausage-making aspect of the process. If they had all “followed Martha’s lead”, we’d all be chewing up bandwidth today about how the Dems screwed up the only chance for health care reform we might see for a long time.
—–Original Message—–
From: Kevin Conroy [mailto:office@marthacoakley.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:49 AM
To: [xxxxxxx]
Subject: A Defining Moment
<
p>
For ten years, Mike Capuano has been walking the walk on issues that affect women’s reproductive rights. Check out his 100% ratings at http://www.votesmart.org.
<
p>He voted against Stupak/Pitts.
<
p>He joined with virtually every other pro-choice Democrat to vote for a health care bill that will not only make history, but will provide necessary coverage to millions of women and children.
<
p>What’s wrong with this picture? Absolutely nothing.
<
p>What’s wrong is that health care is being held hostage. We all want the Senate to eliminate Stupak/Pitts. Or we want it taken out in conference committee.
<
p>But that was not the choice on Saturday. That’s why Martha Coakley’s pandering on this issue is so disingenuous. That is why she is not prepared to lead in a legislative setting.
He opposes the death penalty and votes for an anti-terrorism bill that includes the death penalty and is pro-choice but votes for a bill that limits aceess to reproductive choice.
I must say that I’m quite surprised that Coakley is not just sticking by her guns, but extending her comments out even further. She now puts herself in the following situation if facing a health care vote on a Senate bill containing something like the House abortion provision:
<
p>(1) She votes against the bill, as she’s promised, thus standing with the Republicans in denying millions of Americans much needed health care; or
<
p>(2) She is persuaded to vote for the bill in order to not kill reform, in which case she’s broken a campaign pledge within weeks of being elected.
<
p>The first option is unacceptable — there is no excuse not to make sure we send a solid health care reform vote to the Senate in one of the nation’s most progressive states. The second option, though better, will not place her in the best light and looks weak and indecisive after all her current bluster. Why would she want to straitjacket herself like this?
<
p>Not to mention that Coakley was already well ahead in the polls, and creating a rift between herself and the other candidates is just plain foolish. Her job is to simply keep as a low a profile as possible and coast to election, something she was already on the road to doing. Instead, she created a firestorm, which is the only way her opponents have a chance.
Martha has not created a rift between Democratic candidates. They just disagree on this one vote. And bravo, Martha, for having the guts to stand up for women’s reproductive rights even when caving into the insurance lobby and congressional leadership would have been the easier short term thing to do.
<
p>Where was the leadership from Capuano and our Congressional delegation (excepting Lynch who is pro-life)? Why didn’t they have the strength to walk the walk for women’s rights at this moment (they sure talk the talk at election times)?
Why didn’t Capuano lead the charge and marshall all pro-choice congressmen and women together to say that that amendment is a giant step back for women and no health care reform bill will ever pass if it includes that kind of restriction!??!! Instead, they caved, compromising women’s rights away without a fight or a whimper.
<
p>The beltway boys are used to compromising, so why didn’t they have the leadership skills to get that amendment off the table before it was ever voted on? Where are the leaders who stand for something besides expedience?
<
p>Imagine if prostate surgery had been restricted in the bill…there would have been a stampede to kill it.
Check the roll call for the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. You will see that Capuano voted in opposition of it as did the entire MA delegation except Steven Lynch. Nonetheless, you aim your blame at Capuano, not Lynch.
<
p>Check the roll call for HR 3962, you will that it passed by 2 votes, including Owens of NY-23 and Cao (R-LA). If you are arguing that Capuano and the MA delegation should have voted against HR 3962 then you must have some idea on how they could rid it of the Stupak amendment after the fact otherwise your argument makes no sense. The battle in the house against Stupak had to be joined before the vote on Stupak was taken. Pro-Life Democrats, Blue Dogs and Republicans formed a coalition that the Pro-Choice caucus failed to recognize as a significant threat and failed to organize against.
<
p>You do know you need to include Nancy Pelosi and Niki Tsongas in your phrase “beltway boys,” right? The persistent gender card playing by some Coakley supporters is a red herring.
<
p>Do you agree with Martha’s position that health care reform should be the battleground for the Hyde amendment reversal?
220-215. If two aye voters switched to nay, it would be 218-217… still a pass.
<
p>Otherwise, great post.
Nancy Pelosi is the ultimate beltway boy. And I think the other beltway boys follow her like sheep (to the slaughter.) Capuano claims to be connected and skillful at getting results in DC…that’s his raison d’etre in the Senate race…but when the rubber hit the road, he went along to get along…as did others in our congressional delegation…if he (and they) were so connected and skillful at getting results, why couldn’t they have engineered a compromise that did not involve throwing women’s rights overboard? If they really wanted universal health care with a public option they could get it…iif they were that connected and that skillful…talk is cheap…it is hard to stand on principle and harder still to lead others to your position at the same time.
<
p>I respect your contributions here at BMG, HLPeary, but honestly I don’t get this. What evidence at all do you have that this bill would have passed without the Stupak amendment? I think the counter-evidence is pretty strong…such as the fact that Pelosi as well as a number of the most pro-choice members of the Democratic caucus (like Diana DeGette from Colorado) voted in favor of the bill.
<
p>The notion of health care as a right is, in my opinion, THE issue (along with the right to Social Security) that separates the Democrats from the Republicans. Anyone willing to throw overboard significant health care reform because the bill is imperfect in order to secure passage is simply not acting as a true progressive.
As I watch this play out I’m wondering more and more why we didn’t get more fight from the left. Just because the White House wasn’t enthusiastic about single-payer doesn’t mean its proponents in Congress should shut up. All we ever heard about was moving far enough right to assuage all the blue dogs (and if we’re really lucky a token GOP vote so we can all pat ourselves on the back, wink at each other, and claim to be “bipartisan”), but why weren’t there more liberals screeming, “Hey, if you want our votes, you’d better play ball with us too!” Are there really so few of them that they have no leverage. Ultimate Kucinich voted against the House bill for not going far enough and looked petty doing it. (I’m not aware of any of the other Democrats voting against for that reason.) If Kucinich had been part of a larger group that insisted on being courted the way the blue dogs did that might have worked and he would look courageous.
<
p>HR 676 is still out there and if the current legislation goes down over abortion or any other reason, then I say we go all in for single-payer. The proponents need to take the lead and make it part of the discussion on the Sunday morning circuit and elsewhere, with or without assistance from the White House and Congressional leadership. Single-payer I think is easier to defend and define both ethically and politically than this ever was anyway. Don’t be scared of popular opposition. Our political leaders are supposed to lead and Americans will at least give this more serious consideration if someone is talking about it on a regular basis.
Because compromising means we get health insurance for all Americans and not compromising means we get health insurance for nobody. Ted Kennedy was a great compromiser, and while I am sure he would have been outraged by the Stupak amendment (full disclosure Im glad a pro-life liberal had the balls to actually do this and I am in love with Stupak right now) he would have rolled with it since at the end of the day healthcare for all Americans is more important than a semantic argument about abortion. This language does not stop private insurers from providing abortions, it does not undo Roe v Wade, it doesn’t even stop states from implementing abortion insurance in their own versions of the public option, what it does stop is changing the over 40 year precedent of no federal funds for abortion, a position of government neutrality mainstream Democrats from Joe Biden to Al Gore have supported for years.
Compromise is fine but at what cost? Apparently many in the House felt they could compromise on women’s rights. That’s what is so upsetting to many of us. This has happened too often. Another reason we need more than 17% women representing us. Having the elected reflect the people they represent is not an unreasonable request.
I have said it on a different post, the “yes” vote, for now, cost nothing because there is a very good chance that the Stupak Amendment will die in conference committee.
<
p>So Capuano voting “yes” on Saturday, and now fighting hard to remove the Stupak Amendment is the only way to get what we all want – healthcare for all minus the Stupak Amendment.
<
p>Coakley’s vote would have ended the discussion on Saturday.
<
p>Capuano said he won’t vote for it in the final bill, so he wont cross the line you draw. But he was smart enough to know that he had at least one more bite at the apple. He still has time to work for healthcare without Stupak.
<
p>It isnt an easy position to explain, especially not during a campaign, but its the right decision. Which is why so many of his pro-choice colleagues voted the exact same way.
<
p>Capuano’s vote got us a second chance.
If you consider that a gaffe so be it. I know it’s a unique idea but some people have a hard time caving. When Martha is in the Senate she will have quite a few Senators with her determination. I believe Barbara Boxer has weighed in along with several others. And at last the President has finally said he doesn’t support the Stupak amendment.
For my money, I’d rather have a Senator who displays courage of conviction rather than take the easy way out. Given the fact that Martha, the President, Barbara Boxer, Rachel Maddow, Dr. Nancy Snyderman et al all want healthcare reform, they just don’t want to have it at the expense of civil rights.
Granted that might not be the best imagery when discussing abortion, but the question has to be does the bill overall achieve greater good for the greater number compared to the status quo. I would vote for the conference report even with the Stupak language rather than base my vote on single-issue ideology. I also am not optimistic that the Senate or its conferees will insist on removing it since there are a higher proportion of red-state Democrats there, plus I’m pretty sure Harry Reid himself is prolife.
I said the same thing a few posts above. I would rather fund healthcare for 36 million than lose that fight over an amendment that affects maybe a few thousand Americans at most. Furthermore its not even like there are enough votes to pass healthcare reform while killing the amendment. And kudos to Stupak for sticking to his guns-God knows the 60% of Democrats that oppose federal funding for abortion are glad someone spoke up for them for a change and not the abortion on demand extremists that seem to be running the party these days.
If Coakley wants to be the Dennis Kucinich of the Senate, I won’t support her.
<
p>I prefer someone closer to Ted Kennedy — someone of impeccable progressive stripes but also someone who knows what it takes to get things done. Sadly, after the comments from both major candidates on this issue, it appears that there is no such person in this race.
And that’s a good thing. She stands on principle. She also knows how to get things done. She is smart enough to figure out her way through the mire that is DC culture. Ted Kennedy was an Assistant DA when he ran for US Senate…he figured it out…so will she.
he’s not the only one not answering questions:
<
p>Phoenix
<
p>
<
p>So, um, come on, Martha. Would you vote on closure or not.
He hasn’t even yet said how he would vote if it were in the Senate bill. I think asking Martha to go even further is premature. She has certainly put herself on the line. I think the guys are trying to figure out how to spin the new developments. They all had a gotcha knee jerk reaction without thinking it through. If you speak from a base of conviction and not political expediency it’s easy to keep your story straight no matter how hard the opposition tries to distort.
Given Coakley’s statements I thing it’s fair to ask about the closure vote.
<
p>I voting for Capuano in the primary, but I do like Coakley as well. I’m on this particular issue because I’m having difficultly with Coakley’s handling of health care reform and I want this flushed out.
<
p>Capuano just put out a statement. Health care debate. He’s willing to explain he vote and debate it.
…that implies women support Coakley and men support Capuano?
<
p>
<
p>If so, I’ll show some tolerance for the arguments that imply Coakley operates from “a base of conviction” and her opponent, expediency and distortion.
Neil; the “guys” reference was to Capuano and Goldman of the Capuano campaign…because they are both male the poster said “guys”…no gender card intended…who even needs a gender card in this race?
Not so “manna from heaven” I guess
<
p>He voted yes to pass it out of the house, and would vote no if it comes out of conference with Stupak intact.
<
p>
I was dissappointed for Coakley for grandstanding on this… but now I’m revolted by Capuano for flip-flopping and cowering on this. Khazei is looking better and better…
I don’t get it…I really don’t get it…how casually Coakley would kill health care reform for a generation.
<
p>Because if that bill dies in the House, it ain’t coming back. It ain’t coming back next month, next year, or next Congress. Coakley, safely on the sidelines, would have spiked it right from the get-go.
<
p>Capuano moved the process along. Which was the right thing to do. How he votes when the final bill is presented is the key.
First, he hasn’t gained ANY traction against Martha since August, with only Pags growing/buying support. Then, after thinking he had his first real break–the Stupak amendment–he reverses direction? Now he’ll be back on his heels for a couple of days and will be explaining this “flip flop” until Dec 8th.
<
p>I never believe it’s “over” in politics, but I need someone to give me a scenario of how Cap pulls this off? The irony of this, is that I’m a Khazei guy who was planning on voting for Cap if Khazie faded and Cap was making inroads. This is the 2nd “mistake” Cap has made in my eyes (he flubbed his explanation of his financial deregulation vote at Merrimack College). Now Cap is off my maybe list.
and this happens!
<
p>My head is spinning…..
<
p>it looks like he is holding ground on voting for health care reform. This is an incredibly difficult situation, it’s good to know he is working behind the scenes for women’s health care rights.
<
p>
<
p>I really feel like I can trust him to make the smartest decision. He knows how important this is.
<
p>email/no link
…and then basically says he was going to vote no on the exact same bill that he voted yes to less than 72 hours ago.
<
p>Frankly I’m relieved that Cap has taken this position, instead of trying to exploit a fissure that has developed within the progressive community. No doubt calmer heads prevailed in the campaign.
<
p>But the poor word choice of “flip flop” in this email is unfortunate.
said the Catholic Church’s opposition to abortion funding in the health care bill is ‘fanning flames of dissent and discord.’
<
p>
<
p>His stock is rising in my eyes. Yea Patrick.
If anything it is the Patrick Kennedy’s of the world fanning the flames by openly dissenting with the moral positions of the Church. They should let the Church advocate for their positions and then respectfully disagree. Instead pro-choice Catholics have been trying to shove their moral positions upon the rest of the church for years. An overwhelming majority of Catholics are pro-life, Patrick Kennedy speaks only for himself when he assaults the stance of the Bishops-most of their flock are happy to be lead in the right direction.
<
p>I don’t think Patrick is shoving his views upon the rest of the church, I think he is arguing as a Congressman for his constituents.
<
p>We live in a democracy that is not governed by your religious values or mine but a consensus. No one forces you or other Pro-choice Catholics to have an abortion. You make that moral choice yourself.
<
p>The law of the land is that people can make their own moral choice when it comes to abortion. Didn’t God give us free will specifically to make those choices.
<
p>Our democratic society is heterogeneous on religious, ethnic and racial scales. Strict Pro-life Christians and Catholics want to force their moral code on other people.
<
p>
on the Catholic church? The Pope and Bishops call the shots. As far as abortion rights go, I think Catholics are no more apt to support or reject them than the next American.
<
p>As much as the Church hierarchy likes to pretend it cares about more than abortion, it is the spoiled child of her political agenda. The Stupak Amendment radically extends the anti-abortion agenda beyond the public option and into the private realm. It’s not just the Hyde Amendment, it would apply to insurance purchased on an exchange by private companies.
<
p>I’m sure someone can point out somewhere someone in the Church has supported health care reform, but it certainly hasn’t been a leader in that regard.
<
p>Moral leadership from the Church hierarchy is as scarce as serious ideas in the Republican Party. It is an intellectually-challenged body of men that John Paul II bequeathed to Catholicism, more concerned with a fundamentalism, focused, not on scripture, but on the tradition that justifies their own power.
<
p>Celibacy? Sure, it has a “scriptural” basis. Priests dying of AIDS? Never happens. Running an underground railroad for pedophiles? The Church couldn’t deprive those priests of its due process in canon law.
<
p>It wasn’t a pro-choice person asking me to sign a petition to support abortion when I walked out of Church. It wasn’t a fertility doctor telling me and my wife that it was a sin for her to receive fertility treatments. And it wasn’t a marriage equality supporter asking me to sign a petition the day I stopped going to Church. I tried hard to stick with the Church. I grew up in it and began to raise my children in it. Leaving it was like getting a divorce.
<
p>Tell me more about how all the liberals are shoving their agenda down the throat of the Mother Church.
If Glenn Beck said that marriage equality groups were ‘fanning the flames of dissent and discord’ you would certainly have a different reaction. I am saying that the Church has every right to state its opinion, it is stating its opinion on behalf of its faithful members who adhere to an ethic of life and oppose abortion. John Kennedy said he would not speak for his Church as President, but for all Americans. The thing is Patrick Kennedy is not speaking for all Americans, he is speaking only for those American Catholics that are pro-choice, and he is specifically speaking against the church. He could say he disagrees with its position. Mario Cuomo has done so quite eloquently in the past, even though I disagree with his position on abortion, I at least respect the serious moral reasoning that he uses to engage the topic. Patrick is using no such thing, he is using Glenn Beck esque language, and frankly old school WASP based anti-papist language, to argue that the Church is some evil cabal fanning flames of discord and dissent.
<
p>What if a right winger said, in regard to the Ft. Hood shootings that ‘Islam is fanning the flames of discord and dissent in this country’. He is calling the church anti-American and unpatriotic for holding a position it, and millions of Americans hold. Rep. Kennedy is free to his opinion and I respectfully disagree, but his anti-Catholic rhetoric is more appropriate for a Guy Fawkes day pope burning sermon than for an American Congressman-especially when who purports to be Catholic.
<
p>And yes when it comes to a matter we consider life and death we do want to force our opinion on others-because it will save lives.
if they said today was Tuesday, November 10, 2009 (it is). Just assume that attacking is all they know, and operate doing the things you know are correct and best for the country.
if they said today was Tuesday, November 10, 2009 (it is). Just assume that attacking is all they know, and operate doing the things you know are correct and best for the country.
Well, it looks as though good old boy Mike has changed his mind. Did he figure out that he was going to lose votes? He’s the guy who says he stands for something. What? Changing his mind one day later. There’s nothing like having the courage of ones convictions–he and the other munchkins in the race could learn some lessons about that from Martha Coakley.
Coakley would have sought to kill this historic chance at health care reform before the Senate and conference could improve the bill (which it will–Stupak won’t survive a filibuster). Coakley refuses to retake the field if losing the game at halftime.
<
p>Capuano will kill an anti-abortion health care regime at the last second if that is the only option. However, he’s willing to let the process play out and choose patience over politics. Capuano plays out the game until the bitter end — then does what he must.
<
p>Coakley is exploiting the unwillingness or inability of people to tell the difference between the two.
<
p>PS: I’m still not sure where Coakley gets to set up her pro-choice credentials as superior and more principled to the Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosis of the world, who fought those battles but can advocate for two good things at once.
I think there is no flip-flop on Mikes part. He is saying he voted for HRC with Stupak to advance it to the Senate where he, and other Democrats, expect it to be watered down, at least to Hyde levels of restrictions which most Americans and Democrats support and which is the status quo. He is then saying when it comes back to the House in modified form, which it must to be passed, and the Stupak language has not changed, then he will vote against it.
<
p>That is starkly different from Martha Coakely who would have killed health care reform during the first half as sabutai aptly puts it. Basically Capuano is showing that he will be a Senator who actually engages the issues and understands how Congress works as opposed to a grand stander who gets little done, a la Tom Coburn.
<
p>I think there is some nuance lost in your analysis which makes a distinction between moving a bill forward from the house to the Senate and whether one would be willing to make the same vote on the bill coming out of conference.
<
p>I may be mistaken but this is an issue I have been thinking about and trying to sort out and have noticed others probing at too. All votes are not the same – House votes, Senate votes, conference bill votes.
<
p>In this case, moving a Senate bill with Stupak insures Stupak in the conference bill, which would then be voted upon coming out of conference. Moving a Senate bill without Stupak but with an abortion policy more in line with the Hyde Amendment means the issue would be resolved in conference, where Democrats have more control than Republicans. That said, both houses have a chance to vote on the bill coming out of conference.
<
p>Anyway, does your analysis stand up to the context in which the claimed their position. Were they talking about their house vote, a presumed senate vote or a vote on the post-conference bill from whatever chamber they would be in?
<
p>
he “may” or “might” … is not the same as “agrees with Coakley”. Whom by the way won’t commit on a closure vote. You’ve seemed to neglect that little tid bit.
<
p>I think your candidate preference is showing ; )
He’s unequivocally said that he agrees with Coakley on how to vote on the conference committee bill should it contain Stupak-Pitts. That’s my point. Isn’t that accurate?
<
p>AFAIK no one, Capuano or Coakley, has said anything about cloture.
Is that and the Globes characterization that he and her would have shared the same vote on the initial vote on HRC w/Stupak. Your UPDATE does not make the distinction that Capuano would be voting against HRC w/Stupak in the event it comes back to the House without any substantial changes. Also another important question to ask, would candidates vote for HCR that comes out of the Senate retaining language that is similar in scope to the Hyde amendment, that is removing prohibitions on private plans in the insurance exchange having abortion plans but retaining prohibitions on abortion funding with the federal plan? So far Coakley again says she would vote no, due to her opposition to the Hyde amendment in general. I am curious what the other 3 think on this issue, particularly Capuano since its his vote to make.
the fact of the matter is that Coakley would have voted down the House bill and Capuano voted to continue the debate in the Senate. That is pretty significant and a point you do not make in any of your comments. It’s incorrect and misleading.
Whereby all our trusted politician friends are able to torpedo health reform, thus pleasing the increasingly agitated and panicked insurance lobbyists and industry donors, while claiming to have resisted for “noble reasons” that will play well in their own home territories. Almost “everybody” wins.
…I’m realizing how weak this field is to replace one of the greatest Senators in United States history. One would think we’d be able to find better Democratic candidates in Massachusetts.
<
p>One only hopes that Coakley, assuming she wins (which is still very likely, especially after Capuano fumbled his chance for a real issue) will grow in the office.
NO on Stupak in the house last Saturday – GOOD VOTE
<
p>YES on HR 3962 in the house last Saturday, which passes by 2 votes and moves it to Senate. It would not have passed without the vote on Stupak, which earned 24 votes. This is the deal Pelosi made to get HR 3962 out of the house. Presumably she knows what she’s doing – GOOD VOTE
<
p>NO vote commitment for a bill with anti-abortion language like the Stupak amendment coming out of conference (as opposed to YES vote commitment for a bill with language like the Hyde Amendment=status quo) – GOOD VOTES
But you, NeilSagan, are presenting things in a lot clearer fashion than the candidate, Mike Capuano. His actual votes are clear enough, but his latest comments (a reversal from his original position) certainly are not.
It is confusing and I don’t think we’ve gotten to the bottom of it.
<
p>I think Cap was defending his YES vote in the house and hammering Coakley thinking she was talking about a no vote in the house when she was talking about a no vote in the senate, which is how he would vote in the senate too, and how he will vote on the conference bill in the house.
Im a Capuano supporter, I think Coakley has shown why she isn’t ready to be Senator yet. But Mike is certainly looking like a rookie with these rhetorical contortions, he could have done so much better.
That especially is a good vote-and another place where Martha would vote NO because she has campaigned against the Hyde amendment.
or “flip-flopping” or whatever.
<
p>Don’t people understand there’s such a thing as legislative maneuvering? Can’t people understand the difference between allowing a bill to move forward, when there’s a good chance the bad gets tossed out, versus voting against a bad bill as a final bill? To do both is not somehow “flip flopping,” that’s just plain-old nasty politics to paint it in that light.
<
p>I stick by what I’ve said since Stupak made it out of the house. It was a good thing to push HCR forward, but if Stupak somehow stays in through the conference bill, then congress should say no to anything with it. But to do so any sooner would only serve to crush HCR when it wasn’t necessary to do so. So far Capuano has proven he ‘gets it,’ whilst a lot of casual observers (including on BMG) seem like lost puppies and the media tries to stir up false (blatantly so in this case) controversy. Coakley and her supporters can try to spin this anyway they want, but she fudged this one big time and should walk it back or be taken to task. HCR is too important to have Coakley grandstanding on this, while advocating for things that would actually — and quite unnecessarily — prematurely kill it.
whether people like it or not. So you’re willing to forsake health reform (at lease for now) if that happens? I understand about “card holding” and negotiations, etc, but at some point voters need to know whether electing so-and-so is more likely to result in successful passage of health reform or not.
it will take 60 votes to get an amendment ont the bill. Sen. Casey (D-PA)is pro-life and wants status quo on abortion rights.
<
p>I don’t know how you conclude “there’s a good chance something like Stupak will endure.” What do you got?
Do you want 36 million more people covered with government health insurance and no abortion funding or no additional people covered with health insurance and no abortion funding?
<
p>Martha would favor the latter option and that is why she is not fit to be a Senator IMO.
Who? Who’s said it?
<
p>I’ve linked to the Senate math. This thing ain’t getting through the Senate. If it ain’t getting through the Senate, we can kill it. Will it be easy? It never is. We knew that going in here. Stupak was just the latest, stupid maneuver by the other sides. We’ll beat them, despite what “other people” (beltway pundits? Conventional wisdom wizards?) say. Believe it or not, the math, this time, is actually on our side.
I can only assume that the makeup of the senate must be somewhat similar to that of the house, with pro-life leanings even among a few of the democrats. Killing Stupak’s amendment might not be a slam dunk, and once it’s killed, the health reform bill itself might falter.
I trust your prognostication as least as much as any other Beltway Wizards.
I’ve linked to the numbers of people who have a) already voted against this in the Senate (on the finance committee) and b) those not on the committee who promised to vote against any such amendment or who are enormously strong allies on the choice issue.
<
p>You’ve spoken about how you “assume” things and how you “might” think things could go, based on your gut feelings. Either speak to what I’ve linked, show me where the 60+ votes will come, or stop being such a prat. Facts and figures matter — and you’ve brought none to the table here.
Mike Capuano might be making a mistake by trusting voters to be thoughtful about the legislative process and what it takes to get things done in DC. But, I think he is being refreshingly honest, and reminding us that we are voting to send someone to Washington who will roll up their sleeves and do the hard work of legislating.
<
p>Martha’s pandering on this issue either belies any basic understanding of the process or is cynical to the extreme. She would have worked to kill health care last Saturday ending any hopes to get it passed. Unless Martha is saying she would have done nothing to round up other pro-choice legislators to vote against it? Or maybe she’s not familiar with that other basic skill vital to getting things done in the legislative process – how to count votes?
Just ask John Kerry. he wasn’t lying when he said he voted for it before he voted against it, with multiple revisions and votes thats entirely possibly in the Senate. But the people perceived him to be a liar because of that.
I remember people muttering about how Bush was exploiting that grave but understandable mistake, relying on voters’ ignorance to make it stick.
<
p>Some of those same people are now doing the same exact thing on Coakley’s behalf.
“either you do or you don’t“
<
p>That was the title of the press release the Capuano campaign issued, right before he did, but immediately after he didn’t, which was directed at Martha Coakley’s campaign…
<
p>
<
p>I think the best that can be said, right now, about the Capuano campaign is that the message is garbled. Pointing out that the message is garbled has little, I think, to do with Coakley and more to do with the fact that the message is garbled.
I may/may not have told this story here before, but it bears repeating.
<
p>Was doing some research for a candidate about hot button issues. Went back two years, and discovered that the defining issue of that year was the death penalty – where you stood was make or break.
<
p>The issue never came up in that following session – instead, stem cell research moved front and center, and NOBODY had dipped THAT litmus paper! A pro-choice rep was anti-stem cell, a pro-life death penalty opponent was pro-stem cell because of MS in his family, and so on.
<
p>The issues you are being questioned on are rarely the most important you will deal with in your term (Mr. Kirk is a notable exception). Some issues are continual, like death and taxes, but the wrinkles that arise cannot be foreseen.
<
p>So – you need to examine not narrow stances, but style and reasoning – because what you are really choosing is a skill set and judgement to represent you.
<
p>What was revealed? That Coakley is decisive and logical. Agree or not, she took a stand, explained her reasoning, and stood by it when it appeared dicey. Capuano veered from condescencion (towards the naieve little lady), to strong statement of support (towards irreconcilable stances) to ‘clarification’ based on his record (attempting to disguise an about face based on popular reaction, not any intrinsic principle on the issue).
<
p>Pags and Khazai were not able to inject themselves into the discussion, an unforrtunate trait in a mid-term freshman.
<
p>The heat of the discussion cast light upon the intrinsic style of the candidates.
<
p>Possibly and yet there are other variables to consider such as the role of advisers and media in crafting the perceptions and messages we are seeing and hearing.
<
p>I agree with your statement above but not necessarily with your conclusions. Your statement would have me leaning toward Khazei.
<
p>Theoretically speaking, would you vote for female candidate Coakley – D, or anti-feminist Brown -R?
Scott “hey kids, go f$%& yourselves” Brown. 😉
Maybe you should look at Mr. Brown’s positions as a woman, rather than the 240 year old misogynist racist whose name you’ve adopted.
To be clear I support Capuano and would never vote for Brown because of his stances against gay-marriage and health care reform. But I see no reason why a pro-choice (considering how many times I was called anti-woman today for my moderately pro-life views presumably these people think Brown is “pro-woman”), pro-maternity leave, pro-womens rights in a broad sense Brown is anti-feminist. His wife is a career woman with more success then he has arguably, and she works harder than he does presumably. So I see no reason why he is anti-feminist. There are plenty of reasons to oppose Scott Brown, even more reasons to support the eventual Democrat. But I see no reason to call Brown anti-feminist.
Anti-affirmative action.
<
p>Anti-equal pay legislation (free market, wahoo!)
<
p>Anti-public option/health care for all which is a feminist and minority issue.
<
p>His wife kept her already established professional maiden name and is a successful career woman – has nothing to do with him or his policy positions.
<
p>What initiatives has he proposed that are progressive feminist stances? Anti-equal marriage is arguably an anti-feminist position.
<
p>Let the enlightenment begin.
IT’s a test they have to pass before they can get their official Womyn license.
<
p>Womyn NEED affirmative action, so that’s anti-feminist. And so on.
<
p>The days of Fighting Feminists like Susan B. Anthony, Carrie Nation, Margaret Sanger and Betty Friedan are over…a feminist must be a progressive womyn now.